Advertisement

Modelling a preference-based index for EQ-5D using a non-parametric Bayesian method

  • Samer A. Kharroubi
  • Chaza Abou Daher
Article
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Conventionally, models used for health state valuation data have been parametric. Recently, a number of researchers have investigated the use of non-parametric Bayesian methods in this area.

Objectives

In this paper, we present a non-parametric Bayesian model to estimate a preference-based index for a five-dimensional health state classification, namely EQ-5D.

Methods

A sample of 2997 members of the UK general population valued 43 health states selected from a total of 243 health states defined by the EQ-5D using time trade-off technique. Findings from non-parametric modelling are reported in this paper and compared to previously used parametric estimations. The impact of respondent characteristics on health state valuations is also reported.

Results

The non-parametric models were found to be better at predicting scores in populations with different distributions of characteristics than observed in the survey sample. Additionally, non-parametric models were found to be better at allowing for the impact of respondent characteristics to vary by health state. The results show an important age effect with sex having some effect.

Conclusion

The non-parametric Bayesian models provide more realistic and better utility estimates from the EQ-5D than previously used parametric models have done. Furthermore, the model is more flexible in estimating the impact of covariates.

Keywords

Preference-based health measure EQ-5D Time trade-off Covariates Non-parametric Bayesian methods 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the University Research Bureau (URB) at the American University of Beirut, Lebanon for funding this study.

Funding

This study was funded by the University Research Bureau (URB) at the American University of Beirut, Lebanon.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the authors.

Supplementary material

11136_2018_1935_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (253 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 252 KB)
11136_2018_1935_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (102 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 102 KB)
11136_2018_1935_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (211 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 210 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37, 53–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Torrance, G. W., Feeny, D. H., Furlong, W. J., Barr, R. D., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Q. A. (1996). Multi-attribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system: Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Medical Care, 34(7), 702–722.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Feeny, D. H., Furlong, W. J., Torrance, G. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Zenglong, Z., Depauw, S., Denton, M., & Boyle, M. (2002). Multi-attribute and single-attribute utility function for the Health Utility Index Mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40(20), 113–128.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sintonen, H. (1994). The 15D-measure of health-related quality of life. I. Reliability, validity and sensitivity of its health state descriptive system. National Center for Health Program Evaluation 1994; Working Paper 41, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sintonen, H. (1995). The 15D-measure of health-related quality of life. II. Feasibility, reliability and validity of its valuation system. National Center for Health Program Evaluation 1995; Working Paper 42, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hawthorne, G., Richardson, G., & Atherton_Day, N. (2001). A comparison of the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Annals of Medicine, 33, 358–370.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaplan, R. M., & Anderson, J. P. (1988). A general health policy model: Update and application. Health Services Research, 23, 203–235.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brazier, J. E., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21, 271–292.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Revicki, D. A., Leidy, N. K., Brennan-Diemer, F., Sorenson, S., & Togias, A. (1998). Integrating patients’ preferences into health outcomes assessment: The multiattribute asthma symptom utility index. Chest, 114(4), 998–1007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brazier, J. E., Czoski-Murray, C., Roberts, J., Brown, M., Symonds, T., & Kelleher, C. (2008). Estimation of a preference-based index from a condition specific measure: The King’s Health Questionnaire. Medical Decision Making, 28, 113–126.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brazier, J. E., Ratcliffe, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Solomon, J. (2007). Measuring and valuing health for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M., O’Brien, B., & Stoddart, G. L. (2005). Torrance, G.W: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuation for Euroqol health states. Medical Care, 35, 351–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCabe, C., Stevens, K., Roberts, J., & Brazier, J. E. (2005). Health state values for the HUI2 descriptive system: results from a UK Survey. Health Economics, 14, 231–244.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kharroubi, S. A., O’Hagan, A., & Brazier, J. E. (2005). Estimating Utilities from individual health state preference data: A nonparametric Bayesian approach. Applied Statistics, 54, 879–895.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kharroubi, S. A., Brazier, J., O’Hagan, A., & Roberts, J. (2007). Modelling SF-6D health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Journal of Health Economics, 26, 597–612.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kharroubi, S. A., Brazier, J., O’Hagan, A., & Roberts, J. (2007). Modelling covariates for the SF-6D standard gamble health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Social Science & Medicine, 64, 1242–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kharroubi, S. A., & McCabe, C. (2008). Modelling HUI 2 health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Medical Decision Making, 28, 875–887.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dolan, P., Gudex, C., & Kind, P. (1996). Valuing health states: A comparison of methods. Journal of Health Economics, 2, 209–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shaw, J. W., Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (2005). US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: Development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Medical Care, 43, 203–220.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    The UK Office for National Statistics, Governments departments and devolved administrations. Retrieved January 29, 2013, from, http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census.
  22. 22.
    ISPOR (International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research). Pharmacoeconomics Guidelines from around the world, 2006; http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/index.-asp.
  23. 23.
    Oakley, J., & O’Hagan, A. (2002). Bayesian inference for the uncertainty distribution of computer model outputs. Biometrika, 89, 769–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.American University of BeirutBeirutLebanon
  2. 2.Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Faculty of Agricultural and Food SciencesAmerican University of BeirutBeirutLebanon

Personalised recommendations