Mapping the eight-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8) to the EQ-5D utility index
- 477 Downloads
To develop a function for mapping the eight-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8) to the EuroQol Group’s EQ-5D utility index.
Data from two surveys of 324 patients with Parkinson’s disease was divided into two groups. One was used to estimate the mapping functions by regression methods and the other was used to validate the mapping functions.
A regression model with a non-linear trend explained 55% of the variation in EQ-5D utility values and had a mean absolute deviation (MAD) of 0.083. A regression model assuming a linear trend explained 52% of the variation and had an MAD of 0.085. In the validation sample, predicted values based on the aforementioned models respectively explained 42 and 44% of the variation in the observed EQ-5D utility values and both had MADs of about 0.1. The confidence intervals of the mean difference between these predicted values and the observed values totally fell within the pre-defined equivalence margin of 0.03 points. These predicted values were also similar to the observed EQ-5D utility values in terms of their association with clinical variables.
At the group level, but not at the individual level, the mapping functions can accurately map the PDQ-8 outcomes to the EQ-5D utility index.
KeywordsEQ-5D PDQ-8 Health utility Parkinson’s disease
Parkinson’s disease questionnaire
Ordinary least squares
Censored least absolute deviation
The authors would like to thank the EuroQol Group (http://www.euroqol.org/) and the Health Services Research Unit (Oxford University) for allowing us to use their instruments in this study.
- 1.Gold, M. R., Patrick, D. L., Torrance, G. W., Fryback, D. G., Hadorn, D. C., Kamlet, M. S., et al. (1996). Identifying and valuing outcomes. In M. R. Gold, J. E. Siegel, L. B. Russell & M. C. Weinstein (Eds.), Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine (pp. 82–134). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 2.Drummond, M. F., O’Brien, B. J., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W. (1997) Cost-utility analysis. In M. F. Drummond, B. J. O’Brien, G. L. Stoddart & G. W. Torrance (Eds.), Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 139–199.Google Scholar
- 9.Brooks, R., Rabin, R., & de Charro, F (Eds.). (2003). The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publications.Google Scholar
- 13.Marinus, J., Ramaker, C., van Hilten, J. J., & Stiggelbout, A. M. (2002). Health related quality of life in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review of disease specific instruments. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 72, 241–248. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.72.2.241.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Schrag, A., Selai, C., Jahanshahi, M., & Quinn, N. P. (2000). The EQ-5D—a generic quality of life measure—is a useful instrument to measure quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 69, 67–73. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.69.1.67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Luo, N., Chew, L. H., Fong, K. Y., Koh, D. R., Ng, S. C., Yoon, K. H., et al. (2003). Validity and reliability of the EQ-5D self-report questionnaire in English-speaking Asian patients with rheumatic diseases in Singapore. Quality of Life Research, 12, 87–92. doi: 10.1023/A:1022063721237.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Cheung, Y. B., Thumboo, J., Goh, C., Khoo, K. S., Che, W., & Wee, J. (2004). The equivalence and difference between the English and Chinese versions of two major, cancer-specific, health-related quality-of-life questionnaires. Cancer, 101, 2874–2880. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20681.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- 24.Jolliffe, D., Krushelnytskyy, B., & Semykina, A. (2001). Censored least absolute deviations estimator. Stata Technical Bulletin, 10, 240–244.Google Scholar
- 25.Machin, D., Campbell, M., Fayers, P. M., & Pinol, A. P. Y. (1997). Sample size tables for clinical studies (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- 28.Kemmler, G., Holzner, B., Kopp, M., Dünser, M., Margreiter, R., Greil, R., et al. (1999). Comparison of two quality-of-life instruments for cancer patients: the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—General and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17, 2932–2940.PubMedGoogle Scholar