Deriving population norms for the AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D multi-attribute utility instruments from web-based data
(i) to demonstrate a method which ameliorates the problem of self-selection in the estimation of population norms from web-based data and (ii) to use the method to calculate population norms for two multi-attribute utility (MAU) instruments, the AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D, and population norms for the sub-scales from which they are constructed.
A web-based survey administered the AQoL-8D MAU instrument (which subsumes the AQoL-6D questionnaire), to members of the public along with the AQoL-4D which has extant population norms. Age, gender and the AQoL-4D were used as post-stratification auxiliary variables to construct weights to ameliorate the potential effects of self-selection associated with web-based surveys. The weights were used to estimate unbiased population norms. Standard errors from the weighted samples were calculated using Jackknife estimation.
For both AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D, physical health dimensions decline significantly with age. In contrast, for the majority of the psycho-social dimensions there is a significant U-shaped profile. The net effect is a shallow U-shaped relationship between age and both the AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D utilities. This contrasts with the almost monotonic decline in the utilities derived from the AQoL-4D and SF-6D MAU instruments.
Post-stratification weights were used to ameliorate potential bias in the derivation of norms from web-based data for the AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D. The methods may be used generally to obtain norms when suitable auxiliary variables are available. The inclusion of an enlarged psycho-social component in the two instruments significantly alters the demographic profile.
KeywordsCUA Norms AQoL QoL Multi-attribute utility
This research was funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant ID: 1006334.
Compliance with ethical standards
The research has been approved by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee Approval ID: CF15/2829-2015001164.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This research was funded by National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant ID: 1006334.
- 1.Simmons, C. A., & Lehmann, P. (2013). Tools for strengths-based assessment and evaluation. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- 2.Bowling, A. (2005). Measuring health: A review of quality of life measurement scales (3rd ed.). Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- 4.Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2007). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 7.Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., Williams, A. (1995). A social tariff for EuroQoL: Results from a UK general population survey. Discussion Paper No 138. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York.Google Scholar
- 12.Sintonen, H., & Pekurinen, M. (1989). A generic 15 dimensional measure of health-related quality of life (15D). Journal of Social Medicine, 26, 85–96.Google Scholar
- 17.Richardson, J., Elsworth, G., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., Mihalopoulos, C., Schweitzer, I., Herrman, H. (2011). Increasing the sensitivity of the AQoL inventory for evaluation of interventions affecting mental health. Research Paper 61. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.Google Scholar
- 18.Richardson, J., Sinah, K., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A. (2014). Modelling utility weights for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D. Quality of Life Research, 23, 2395–2404.Google Scholar
- 20.Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., Maxwell, A. (2015). Measuring the sensitivity and construct validity of six utility instruments in seven disease states. Medical Decision Making, Accepted 22 Sep 2015.Google Scholar
- 21.Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2015). Comparing and explaining differences in the content, sensitivity and magnitude of incremental utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB and AQoL-8D multi attribute utility instruments’. Medical Decision Making, 35(3), 276–291.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Richardson, J., Chen, G., Khan, M. A., & Iezzi, A. (2015). Can multi attribute utility instruments adequately account for subjective well-being? Medical Decision Making, 35(3), 292–304. doi: 10.1177/0272989X14567354
- 23.Campbell, J. A., Palmer, A. J., Venn, A., Sharman, M., Otahal, P., Neil, A. (2016). A head-to-head comparison of the EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-8D multi-attribute utility instruments in patients who have previously undergone bariatric surgery. The Patient—Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2016 1–12. doi: 10.1007/s40271-015-0157-5
- 25.ABS. (1995). Austalian Bureau of Statistics, National Health Survey SF-36 Population Norms Australia ABS Catalogue No. 4399. Canberra: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4399.01995?OpenDocument. Accessed 19 Apr 2012.
- 28.Cummins, R. A., Knapp, T. M., Woerner, J., Walter, J., Page, K. (2005). The personal Wellbeing of Australians living within federal electoral divisions. Report No: 13.1. Melbourne: Deakin University.Google Scholar
- 32.ABS. (2013). Australian demographic statistics, population by age and sex, Cat 3201.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3201.0Jun%202010?OpenDocument. Accessed 12 Aug 2013.
- 33.Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., Chen, G. (2014). Interim population norms for the AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D multi attribute utility instruments. Research Paper 87. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.Google Scholar
- 36.AQoL. (2016) Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL). http://www.aqol.com.au.
- 40.Iezzi, A., & Richardson, J. (2016). A comparison of AQoL-4D, AQoL-6D, AQoL-7D and AQoL-8D multi attribute utility instruments. Research Paper 93. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.Google Scholar