Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 17, Issue 9, pp 1173–1181 | Cite as

Mapping the eight-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8) to the EQ-5D utility index

  • Y. B. Cheung
  • L. C. S. Tan
  • P. N. Lau
  • W. L. Au
  • N. LuoEmail author
Article

Abstract

Objective

To develop a function for mapping the eight-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8) to the EuroQol Group’s EQ-5D utility index.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Keywords

EQ-5D PDQ-8 Health utility Parkinson’s disease 

Abbreviations

PDQ

Parkinson’s disease questionnaire

OLS

Ordinary least squares

CLAD

Censored least absolute deviation

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. 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. 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
  3. 3.
    Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2001). EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annals of Medicine, 33, 337–343. doi: 10.3109/07853890109002087.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Horsman, J., Furlong, W., Feeny, D., & Torrance, G. (2003). The Health Utilities Index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 54. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lawrence, W. F., & Fleishman, J. A. (2004). Predicting EuroQoL EQ-5D preference scores from the SF-12 Health Survey in a nationally representative sample. Medical Decision Making, 24, 160–169. doi: 10.1177/0272989X04264015.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sullivan, P. W., & Ghushchyan, V. (2006). Mapping the EQ-5D index from the SF-12: US general population preferences in a nationally representative sample. Medical Decision Making, 26, 401–409. doi: 10.1177/0272989X06290496.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brennan, D. S., & Spencer, A. J. (2006). Mapping oral health related quality of life to generic health state values. BMC Health Services Research, 6, 96. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-6-96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wu, E. Q., Mulani, P., Farrell, M. H., & Sleep, D. (2007). Mapping FACT-P and EORTC QLQ-C30 to patient health status measured by EQ-5D in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients. Value in Health, 10, 408–414. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00195.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 10.
    Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35, 1095–1108. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tsuchiya, A., Ikeda, S., Ikegami, N., Nishimura, S., Sakai, I., Fukuda, T., et al. (2002). Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Economics, 11, 341–353. doi: 10.1002/hec.673.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jenkinson, C., Fitzpatrick, R., Peto, V., Greenhall, R., & Hyman, N. (1997). The PDQ-8: development and validation of a short-form Parkinson’s disease questionnaire. Psychology & Health, 12, 805–814. doi: 10.1080/08870449708406741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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. 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
  15. 15.
    Siderowf, A., Ravina, B., & Glick, H. A. (2002). Preference-based quality-of-life in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Neurology, 59, 103–108.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tan, L. C. S., Luo, N., Nazri, M., Li, S. C., & Thumboo, J. (2004). Validity and reliability of the PDQ-39 and the PDQ-8 in English-speaking Parkinson’s disease patients in Singapore. Parkinsonism & Related Disorders, 10, 493–499. doi: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2004.05.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Luo, N., Tan, L. C. S., Li, S. C., Soh, L. K., & Thumboo, J. (2005). Validity and reliability of the Chinese (Singapore) version of the Parkinson’s disease questionnaire (PDQ-39). Quality of Life Research, 14, 273–279.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tan, L. C., Lau, P. N., Au, W. L., & Luo, N. (2007). Validation of PDQ-8 as an independent instrument in English and Chinese. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 255, 77–80. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2007.01.072.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jenkinson, C., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2007). Cross-cultural evaluation of the short form 8-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8): results from America, Canada, Japan, Italy and Spain. Parkinsonism & Related Disorders, 13, 22–28. doi: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2006.06.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 21.
    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 Chinese-speaking patients with rheumatic diseases in Singapore. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore, 32, 685–690.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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. 23.
    Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jolliffe, D., Krushelnytskyy, B., & Semykina, A. (2001). Censored least absolute deviations estimator. Stata Technical Bulletin, 10, 240–244.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 26.
    Dobrez, D., Cella, D., Pickard, A. S., Lai, J. S., & Nickolov, A. (2007). Estimation of patient preference-based utility weights from the functional assessment of cancer therapy—general. Value in Health, 10, 266–272. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00181.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cheung, Y. B., Wong, L. C., Tay, M. H., Toh, C. K., Koo, W. H., Epstein, R., et al. (2004). Order effects in the assessment of quality of life in cancer patients. Quality of Life Research, 13, 1217–1223. doi: 10.1023/B:QURE.0000037499.80080.07.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 29.
    Luo, N., Chew, L. H., Fong, K. Y., Koh, D. R., Ng, S. C., Yoon, K. H., et al. (2003). Do English and Chinese EQ-5D versions demonstrate measurement equivalence? An exploratory study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 7. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sengupta, N., Nichol, M. B., Wu, J., & Globe, D. (2004). Mapping the SF-12 to the HUI3 and VAS in a managed care population. Medical Care, 42, 927–937. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000135812.52570.42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Y. B. Cheung
    • 1
  • L. C. S. Tan
    • 2
  • P. N. Lau
    • 2
  • W. L. Au
    • 2
  • N. Luo
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Clinical Trials and Epidemiology Research Unit (CTERU)SingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Centre, Department of NeurologyNational Neuroscience InstituteSingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.Department of Community, Occupational and Family Medicine & Centre for Health Services ResearchNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations