The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 215–225 | Cite as

A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures

  • John E. Brazier
  • Yaling Yang
  • Aki Tsuchiya
  • Donna Louise Rowen
Original Paper

Abstract

Clinical studies use a wide variety of health status measures to measure health related quality of life, many of which cannot be used in cost-effectiveness analysis using cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY). Mapping is one solution that is gaining popularity as it enables health state utility values to be predicted for use in cost per QALY analysis when no preference-based measure has been included in the study. This paper presents a systematic review of current practice in mapping between non-preference based measures and generic preference-based measures, addressing feasibility and validity, circumstances under which it should be considered and lessons for future mapping studies. This review found 30 studies reporting 119 different models. Performance of the mappings functions in terms of goodness-of-fit and prediction was variable and unable to be generalised across instruments. Where generic measures are not regarded as appropriate for a condition, mapping does not solve this problem. Most testing in the literature occurs at the individual level yet the main purpose of these functions is to predict mean values for subgroups of patients, hence more testing is required.

Keywords

Mapping Cross walking Preference-based measures QALYs 

JEL classification

I10 

References

  1. 1.
    Spilker, B. (ed.): Quality of Life Assessments in Clinical Trials. Raven, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Revicki, D.A., Leidy, N.K., Brennan-Diemer, F., Sorenson, S., Togias, A.: Integrating patients’ preferences into health outcomes assessment: the multi-attribute asthma symptom utility index. Chest 114, 998–1007 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brooks, R.: Euroqol: the current state of play. Health Policy 37, 54–72 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feeny, D., Wu, L., Eng, K.: Comparing short form 6D, standard gamble, and health utilities index Mark 2 and Mark 3 utility scores: results from total hip arthroplasty patients. Qual. Life Res. 13, 1659–1670 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaplan, R.M., Anderson, J.P.: A general health policy model: update and applications. Health Services Res. 23, 203–235 (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Deverill, M.: The estimation of a preference-based single index measure for health from the SF-36. J. Health Econ. 21, 271–292 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marra, C.A., Woolcott, J.C., Kopec, J.A., Shojania, K.I., Offer, R., Brazier, J., Esdaile, J.M., Anis, A.H.: A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HU12, HU13, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc. Sci. Med. 60, 1571–1582 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barton, G.R., Bankart, J., Davis, A.C., Summerfield, Q.A.: Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 3, 103–105 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    DA, F.: Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Food and Drug Administration, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fryback, D.G., Dasbach, E.J., Klein, R., Klein, B.E., Dorn, N., Peterson, K., Martin, P.A.: The Beaver dam health outcomes survey: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med. Decis. Mak. 13, 89–102 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coast, J.: Reprocessing data to form QALYs. Brit. Med. J. 305, 87–90 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tsuchiya, A., Brazier, J., McColl, E., Parkin, D.: Deriving preference-based single indices from non-preference based condition specific instruments: converting AQLQ into EQ-5D indices. HEDS discussion paper (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buxton, M.J., Lacey, L.A., Feagan, B.G., Oliver, R.: Mapping from disease-specific measures to utility: an analysis of the relationship between the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire and Crohan’s Disease Activity Index in Crohn’s disease and measures of utility. Value Health 10, 214–220 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Edlin, R., Tsuchiya, A., Brazier, J.: Mapping the Minnesota living with Heart Failure Questionnaire to the EQ-5D Index. Unpublished manuscript (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gray, A., Clarke, P., Rivero-Arias, O.: Estimating the association between SF-36 responses and EQ-5D utility values by direct mapping. Health Economists Studying Group Meeting (HESG), Paris, January 2004Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gray, A., Rivero-Arias, O., Clarke, P.M.: Estimating the association between SF-12 responses and EQ-5D utility values by response mapping. Med. Decis. Mak. 26, 18–29 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaambwa, B., Bryan, S., Barton, P., Parker, H., Martin, G.: Relationship between the EuroQol-5d and Barthel Index—examining the use of proxy outcome measures for older people. Health Economists Studying Group Meeting (HESG), New York, July 2006Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sullivan, P.W., Ghushchyan, V.: Mapping the EQ-5D Index from the SF-12: US general population preferences in a nationally representative sample. Med. Decis. Mak. 26, 401–409 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roberts, J., Brazier, J., Tsuchiya, A.: Mapping the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire to SF6D indices stage2: final results. Unpublished manuscript (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brazier, J., Kolotkin, R.L., Crosby, R.D., Williams, G.R.: Estimating a preference-based single index for the impact of weight on quality of life-Lite (IWQOL-Lite) instrument from the SF-6D. Value Health 7, 484–496 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Walters, S., Brazier, J.: Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual. Life Res. 14, 1523–1532 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ara, R., Brazier, J.: Deriving an algorithm to convert the eight mean SF-36 dimension scores into a mean EQ-5D preference-based score from published studies (where patient level data are not available). Value Health (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Roberts, J.: Mapping SF-36 onto the EQ-5D Index: how reliable is the relationship? Health Qual. Life Outcomes 7, 27 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brazier, J., Czoski-Murray, C., Roberts, J., Brown, M., Symonds, T., Kelleher, C.: Estimation of a preference-based index from a condition-specific measure: the King’s Health Questionnaire. Med. Decis. Mak. 28, 113–126 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yang, Y., Tsuchiya, A., Brazier, J., Young, Y.: Deriving a preference-based measure for health from the AQLQ. Health Economists Studying Group Meeting (HESG), London, January 2006Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Briggs, A., Clark, T., Wolstenholme, J., Clarke, P.: Missing presumed at random: cost-analysis of incomplete data. Health Econ. 12, 377–392 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kharroubi, S., Brazier, J.E., Roberts, J.R., O’Hagan, A.: Modelling SF-6D health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. J Health Econ. 26, 597–612 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bansback, N., Marra, C., Tsuchiya, A., Anis, A., Guh, D., Hammond, T., Brazier, J.: Using the Health Assessment Questionnaire to estimate preference-based single indices in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 57, 963–971 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bartman, B.A., Rosen, M.J., Bradham, D.D., Weissman, J., Hochberg, M., Revicki, D.A.: Relationship between health status and utility measures in older Claudicants. Qual. Life Res. 7, 67–73 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bosch, J.L., Hunink, M.G.M.: The relationship between descriptive and valuational quality-of-life measures in patients with intermittent claudication. Med. Decis. Mak. 16, 217–225 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brennan, D.S., Spencer, A.J.: Mapping oral health related quality of life to generic health state values. BMC Health Services Research 6 (2006)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dixon, S., McEwan, P., Currie, C.J.: Estimating the health utility of treatment in adults with growth hormone deficiency. J. Outcome Res. 7, 1–12 (2003)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Edlin, R., Tsuchiya, A., Brazier, J.: Mapping the Nepean Dyspepsia Index and patient self-assessed (clinical) data to SF-6D preference weights. Unpublished manuscript (2002)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Franks, P., Lubetkin, E.I., Gold, M.R., Tancredi, D.J.: Mapping the SF-12 to preference-based instruments. Med. Care 41, 1277–1283 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Franks, P., Lubetkin, E.I., Gold, M.R., Tancredi, D.J., Jia, H.: Mapping the SF-12 to the EuroQol EQ-5D Index in a national US sample. Med. Decis. Mak. 24, 247–254 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fryback, D.G., Lawrence, W.F., Martin, P.A., Klein, R., Klein, B.E.K.: Predicting quality of well-being scores from the SF-36: results from the Beaver Dam health outcomes study. Med. Decis. Mak. 17, 1–9 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Grootendorst, P., Marshall, D., Pericak, D., Bellamy, N., Feeny, D., Torrance, G.W.: A model to estimate Health Utilities Index Mark 3 utility scores form WOMAC Index scores in the patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. J. Rheumatol. 34, 534–542 (2007)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kulkarni, A.V.: Distribution-based and anchor-based approaches provided different interpretability estimates for the Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 59, 176–184 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lauridsen, J., Christiansen, T., Hakkinen, U.: Measuring inequality in self-reported helath—discussion of a recently suggested approach using Finnish data. Health Econ. 13, 725–732 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lawrence, W.F., Fleishman, J.A.: Predicting EuroQoL EQ-5D preference scores from the SF-12 health survey in a nationally representative sample. Med. Decis. Mak. 24, 160–169 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Longo, M., Cohen, D., Hood, K., Robling, M.: Deriving an ‘Enhanced’ EuroQol from SF-36. Health Economists Studying Group Meeting (HESG), Nottingham, July 2000Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Longworth, L., Buxton, M.J., Sculpher, M., Smith, A.H.: Estimating utility data from clinical indicators for patients with stable angina. Eur. J. Health Econ. 6, 347–353 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mortimer, D., Segal, L., Harris, A., Hawthorne, G.: Item-based versus subscale-based mappings from the SF36 to a preference-based quality of life measure. Value Health 10, 398–407 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nichol, M.B., Sengupta, N., Globe, D.R.: Evaluating quality-adjusted life years: estimation of the Health Utility Index (HUI2) from the SF-36. Med. Decis. Mak. 21, 105–112 (2001)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Segal, L., Day, S.E., Chapman, A.B., Osborne, R.H.: Can we reduce the burden from osteoarthritis? An evidence-based priority-setting model. Med. J. Aust. 180, S11–S17 (2004)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sengupta, N., Nichol, M.B., Wu, J., Globe, D.: Mapping the SF-12 to the HUI3 and VAS in a managed care population. Med. Care 42, 927–937 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tsuchiya, A.: The estimation of a preference-based single index for the IBS-QoL. Unpublished manuscript (2006)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Van Doorslaer, E., Jones, A.M.: Inequalities in self-reported health: validation of a new approach to measurement. J. Health Econ. 22, 61–87 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • John E. Brazier
    • 1
  • Yaling Yang
    • 1
  • Aki Tsuchiya
    • 1
    • 2
  • Donna Louise Rowen
    • 1
  1. 1.Health Economics and Decision ScienceUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations