Advertisement

The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 231–241 | Cite as

Mapping utility scores from the Barthel index

  • Billingsley KaambwaEmail author
  • Lucinda Billingham
  • Stirling Bryan
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

It is not always possible to collect utility-based outcome data, like EQ-5D, needed for conducting economic evaluations in populations of older people. Sometimes, information on other non-utility outcome measures may have been collected. This paper examines the possibility of mapping the EQ-5D from a non-utility-based outcome, the Barthel index.

Methods

Data for 1,189 UK intermediate care patients were used. Ordinary least squares (OLS), censored least absolute deviations (CLAD) estimator and multinomial logistic (ML) models were used. The mean absolute error (MAE) and root-mean-squared error (RMSE) were used to estimate the predictive accuracy of eight regression models. Validation of primary models was carried out on random samples of data collected at admission and discharge.

Results

Models where the EQ-5D was entered as a continuous dependent variable and Barthel dimensions used as explanatory variables performed better. CLAD performed best on MAE and OLS on the RMSE, while the ML performed the worst on both measures. The CLAD predicted EQ-5D scores that matched the observed values more closely than the OLS.

Conclusions

It is possible to reasonably predict that the EQ-5D from the Barthel using regression methods and the CLAD model (4) is recommended.

Keywords

Mapping Health-related quality of life Older people Utility 

JEL Code

I10 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to colleagues from the Universities of Birmingham and Leicester (the ICNET team) who participated in the National Evaluation of Intermediate Care Services from which data used in this study were obtained. We are also thankful to the intermediate care-coordinators and the staff from the case study sites that provided the quantitative data and clarified follow-up questions. Special thanks go to participants at the UK Health Economists Study Group meeting held at the University of York in July 2006 for comments on an earlier iteration of this work. The National Evaluation was funded by the Department of Health (Policy Research Programme) and the Medical Research Council. The funders were not involved in the study design, in the writing of the manuscript or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

References

  1. 1.
    Coast, J., Peters, T.J., Richards, S.H., Gunnell, D.J.: Use of the EuroQoL among elderly acute care patients. Qual. Life Res. 7, 1–10 (1998)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brazier, J.E., Walters, S.J., Nicholl, J.P., Kohler, B.: Using the SF-36 and Euroqol on an elderly population. Qual. Life Res. 5, 195–204 (1996)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Exel, N.J., Scholte op Reimer, W.J., Koopmanschap, M.A.: Assessment of post-stroke quality of life in cost-effectiveness studies: the usefulness of the Barthel index and the EuroQoL-5D. Qual. Life Res. 13, 427–433 (2004)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miller, P., Gladman, J.R., Cunliffe, A.L., Husbands, S.L., Dewey, M.E., Harwood, R.H.: Economic analysis of an early discharge rehabilitation service for older people. Age Ageing 34, 274–280 (2005)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’Reilly, J., Lowson, K., Young, J., Forster, A., Green, J., Small, N.: A cost effectiveness analysis within a randomised controlled trial of post-acute care of older people in a community hospital. BMJ 333, 228 (2006)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE): Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. NICE, London (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brazier, J., Deverill, M., Green, C., Harper, R., Booth, A.: A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol. Assess. 3, 1–164 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Froberg, D.G., Kane, R.L.: Methodology for measuring health-state preferences–I: measurement strategies. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 42, 345–354 (1989)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Payakachat, N., Summers, K.H., Pleil, A.M., Murawski, M.M., Thomas III, J., Jennings, K., et al.: Predicting EQ-5D utility scores from the 25-item national eye institute vision function questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25) in patients with age-related macular degeneration. Qual. Life Res. 18, 801–813 (2009)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ICNET.: A national evaluation of the costs and outcomes of intermediate care for older people: final report. The University of Leicester, Leicester (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Buxton, M.J., Lacey, L.A., Feagan, B.G., Niecko, T., Miller, D.W., Townsend, R.J.: Mapping from disease-specific measures to utility: an analysis of the relationships between the inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire and Crohn’s disease activity index in Crohn’s disease and measures of utility. Value Health 10, 214–220 (2007)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kind, P., Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Williams, A.: Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ 316, 736–741 (1998)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lyons, R.A., Crome, P., Monaghan, S., Killalea, D., Daley, J.A.: Health status and disability among elderly people in three UK districts. Age Ageing 26, 203–209 (1997)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van den Bos, G.A., Triemstra, A.H.: Quality of life as an instrument for need assessment and outcome assessment of health care in chronic patients. Qual. Health Care 8, 247–252 (1999)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dolan, P.: Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med. Care 35, 1095–1108 (1997)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., Busschbach, J.: A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 13, 873–884 (2004)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kind, P., Hardman, G., Macran, S.: UK population norms for EQ-5D. Discussion paper 172. Centre for Health Economics, University of York (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Murphy, R., Sackley, C.M., Miller, P., Harwood, R.H.: Effect of experience of severe stroke on subjective valuations of quality of life after stroke. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatr. 70, 679–681 (2001)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Post, P.N., Stiggelbout, A.M., Wakker, P.P.: The utility of health states after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Stroke 32, 1425–1429 (2001)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sainsbury, A., Seebass, G., Bansal, A., Young, J.B.: Reliability of the Barthel index when used with older people. Age Ageing 34, 228–232 (2005)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wilkinson, P.R., Wolfe, C.D., Warburton, F.G., Rudd, A.G., Howard, R.S., Ross-Russell, R.W., et al.: Longer term quality of life and outcome in stroke patients: is the Barthel index alone an adequate measure of outcome? Qual. Health Care 6, 125–130 (1997)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Minosso, J.S.M., Amendola, F., Alvarenga, M.R.M., de Campos Oliveira, M.A.: Validation of the Barthel index in elderly patients attended in outpatient clinics, in Brazil. Acta Paul. Enferm. 23, 218–223 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mahoney, F.I., Barthel, D.: Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Md. State Med. J. 14, 61–65 (1965)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wolfe, C.D., Taub, N.A., Woodrow, E.J., Burney, P.G.: Assessment of scales of disability and handicap for stroke patients. Stroke 22, 1242–1244 (1991)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shah, S., Vanclay, F., Cooper, B.: Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel index for stroke rehabilitation. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 42, 703–709 (1989)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wade, D.T., Collin, C.: The Barthel ADL index: a standard measure of physical disability? Int. Disabil. Stud. 10, 64–67 (1988)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Deverill, M.: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J. Health Econ. 21, 271–292 (2002)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Busschbach, J.J., McDonnell, J., Essink-Bot, M.L., van Hout, B.A.: Estimating parametric relationships between health description and health valuation with an application to the EuroQol EQ-5D. J. Health Econ. 18, 551–571 (1999)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chay, K.Y., Powell, J.L.: Semiparametric censored regression models. J. Econ. Perspect. 15, 29–42 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Powell, J.L.: Least absolute deviations estimation for the censored regression model. J. Econ. 25, 303–325 (1984)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Arabmazar, A., Schmidt, P.: Further evidence on the robustness of the Tobit estimator to heteroskedasticity. J. Econ. 17, 253–258 (1981)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vivverberg, W.: Non-normality as distributional misspecification in single-equation limited dependent variable models. Oxf. Bull. Econ Stat. 49, 417–430 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Huang, I.C., Frangakis, C., Atkinson, M.J., Willke, R.J., Leite, W.L., Vogel, W.B., et al.: Addressing ceiling effects in health status measures: a comparison of techniques applied to measures for people with HIV disease. Health Serv. Res. 43, 327–339 (2008)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Johnston, J.: Econometric methods. McGraw-Hill, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gray, A.M., 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
  36. 36.
    Long, S.: Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Advanced quantitative techniques in the social sciences 7. Sage Publications, London (1997)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Green, W.H.: Econometric analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (1997)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Brazier, J.E., Yang, Y., Tsuchiya, A., Rowen, D.L.: A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur. J. Health Econ. 11, 215–225 (2010)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McCullagh, P., Nelder, J.A.: Generalized linear models. Chapman and Hall, London (1989)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bansback, N., Marra, C., Tsuchiya, A., Anis, A., Guh, D., Hammond, T., et al.: Using the health assessment questionnaire to estimate preference-based single indices in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthr Rheum. 57, 963–971 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kennedy, C. E., Aoki, N.: Generating a mortality model from a pediatric ICU (PICU) database utilizing knowledge discovery. Proc. AMIA Symp. 375–379 (2002)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Daniel, W.W., Terrell, J.C.: Business statistics. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston (1995)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hyndman, R.J., Koehler, A.B.: Another look at measures of forecast accuracy. Int. J. Forecast. 22, 679–688 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Altman, D.: Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman and Hall, London (1991)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cheung, Y.B., Thumboo, J., Gao, F., Ng, G.Y., Pang, G., Koo, W.H., et al.: Mapping the english and chinese versions of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-general to the EQ-5D utility index. Value Health 12, 371–376 (2009)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dobrez, D., Cella, D., Pickard, A.S., Lai, J.S., Nickolov, A.: Estimation of patient preference-based utility weights from the functional assessment of cancer therapy—general. Value Health 10, 266–272 (2007)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    StataCorp, L.P.: Intercooled stata 10.1 for windows. TX, College Station (2009)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    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)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cheung, Y.B., Tan, L.C., Lau, P.N., Au, W.L., Luo, N.: Mapping the eight-item Parkinson’s disease questionnaire (PDQ-8) to the EQ-5D utility index. Qual. Life Res. 17, 1173–1181 (2008)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    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
  51. 51.
    Clarke, P., Gray, A., Holman, R.: Estimating utility values for health states of type 2 diabetic patients using the EQ-5D (UKPDS 62). Med. Decis. Mak. 22, 340–349 (2002)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hilari, K., Owen, S., Farrelly, S.J.: Proxy and self-report agreement on the stroke and aphasia quality of life scale-39. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatr. 78, 1072–1075 (2007)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Muus, I., Petzold, M., Ringsberg, K.C.: Health-related quality of life after stroke: reliability of proxy responses. Clin. Nurs. Res. 18, 103–118 (2009)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ostbye, T., Tyas, S., McDowell, I., Koval, J.: Reported activities of daily living: agreement between elderly subjects with and without dementia and their caregivers. Age Ageing 26, 99–106 (1997)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hung, S.Y., Pickard, A.S., Witt, W.P., Lambert, B.L.: Pain and depression in caregivers affected their perception of pain in stroke patients. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 60, 963–970 (2007)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Long, K., Sudha, S., Mutran, E.J.: Elder-proxy agreement concerning the functional status and medical history of the older person: the impact of caregiver burden and depressive symptomatology. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 46, 1103–1111 (1998)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Novella, J.L., Boyer, F., Jochum, C., Jovenin, N., Morrone, I., Jolly, D., et al.: Health status in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: an investigation of inter-rater agreement. Qual. Life Res. 15, 811–819 (2006)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Brazier, J.E., Yang, Y., Tsuchiya, A., Rowen, D.L.: A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur. J. Health Econ. 11, 215–225 (2010)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Billingsley Kaambwa
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lucinda Billingham
    • 2
    • 3
  • Stirling Bryan
    • 4
  1. 1.Health Economics Unit, Public Health BuildingUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  2. 2.Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU)University of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  3. 3.MRC Midland Hub for Trials Methodology ResearchUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  4. 4.Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and EvaluationUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations