Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Mapping the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory to the Health Utility Index Mark III

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To map the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study—Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-ADL) to the Health Utility Index Mark III (HUI3) in people living with dementia (PWD) and to compare the performance of five methods for mapping.

Methods

A cross-sectional study of 346 dyads of community-dwelling PWD and family caregiver was carried out in Singapore. ADCS-ADL and HUI3 were rated by the family caregivers. Disease severity ratings and Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) results were retrieved from medical records. A recently proposed mapping method called the Mean Rank Method (MRM) was described and applied, and the results were compared with regression-based mapping, including ordinary least squares, censored least absolute deviation (CLAD), Tobit and response mapping.

Results

The MRM produced a mapped utility distribution that closely resembled the observed utility distribution. The standard deviations (SDs) of the observed and MRM-mapped utility were both 0.340, whereas the SDs of the other mapped utilities ranged from 0.243 (response mapping) to 0.283 (CLAD). Regressing the MRM- and CLAD-mapped and observed utility values upon disease severity and MMSE gave similar regression lines (each P > 0.05). Regressing the other mapped utility values upon the covariates under- (over-) estimated the utility of good (poor) clinical states. However, regression-based mapping methods gave a better fit at the individual level, as measured by root mean square error, mean absolute error and R2. K fold cross-validation gave similar results.

Conclusions

The MRM is accurate at the group level. The regression-based mapping methods are more accurate for making individual-level prediction. In addition, CLAD also performed reasonably well at the group level.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Claxton, K., et al. (2015). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Whitehead, S. J., & Ali, S. (2010). Health outcomes in economic evaluation: The QALY and utilities. British Medical Bulletin, 96, 5–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D–5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Horsman, J., Furlong, W., Feeny, D., et al. (2003). The Health Utilities Index (HUI): Concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Brazier, J., Usherwood, T., Harper, R., & Thomas, K. (1998). Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1115–1128.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Longworth, L., Yang, Y., Young, T., et al. (2014). Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: A systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technology Assessment. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18090.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fayers, P. M., & Hays, R. D. (2014). Should linking replace regression when mapping from profile-based measures to preference-based measures? Value in Health, 17(2), 261–265.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2016). Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and reporting of patient-reported outcomes (3rd ed.). Oxford: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Whately-Smith, C., Watkins, C., Mann, H., Fletcher, C., & Ducournau, P. (2014). Utility values in health technology assessments: A statistician’s perspective. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 13(3), 184–195.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Crott, R. (2014). Mapping algorithms from QLQ-C30 to EQ-5D utilities: No firm ground to stand on yet. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 14(4), 569–576.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Longworth, L., & Rowen, D. (2013). Mapping to obtain EQ-5D utility values for use in NICE health technology assessments. Value in Health, 16(1), 202–210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Brazier, J., Yang, Y., Tsuchiya, A., & Rowen, D. L. (2010). A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. European Journal of Health Economics, 11, 215–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dakin, H. (2013). Review of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: An online database. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 151.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Singapore Ministry of Health. (2016). ElderShield fast facts. Singapore: Ministry of Health. http://www.eldershield.sg.

  16. Galasko, D., Bennett, D., Sano, M., et al. (1997). An inventory to assess activities of daily living for clinical trials in Alzheimer’s disease. The Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 11(Suppl. 2), S33–S39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Robert, P., Ferris, S., Gauthier, S., et al. (2010). Review of Alzheimer’s disease scales: Is there a need for a new multi-domain scale for therapy evaluation in medical practice? Alzheimer’s Research and Therapy, 26(2), 24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wee, H. L., Yeo, K. K., Chong, K. J., Khoo, E. Y. H., & Cheung, Y. B. (2018). Mean rank, equipercentile and regression mapping of World Health Organization Quality of Life Brief (WHOQOL-BREF) to EuroQoL 5 Dimensions 5 Levels (EQ-5D–5L) utilities. Medical Decision Making, 38(3), 319–333.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cheung, Y. B., Thumboo, J., Gao, F., et al. (2009). Mapping the English and Chinese versions of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General to the EQ-5D utility index. Value in Health, 12(2), 371–376.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cheung, Y. B., Luo, N., Ng, R., & Lee, C. F. (2014). Mapping the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) to the 5-level EuroQoL Group’s 5-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D–5L) utility index in a Multi-ethnic Asian Population. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 180.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Gray, A. M., Rivero-Arias, O., & Clarke, P. M. (2006). Estimating the association between SF-12 responses and EQ-5D utility values by response mapping. Medical Decision Making, 26(1), 18–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Huang, I. C., Frangakis, C., Atkinson, M. J., et al. (2008). Addressing ceiling effects in health status measures: A comparison of techniques applied to measures for people with HIV disease. Health Services Research, 43, 327–339.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 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(4), 401–409.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Dorans, N. J. (2007). Linking scores from multiple health outcome instruments. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl. 1), 85–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1989). The kernel method of equating score distributions. Washington, DC: Educational Testing Service.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Chan, A., Ostbye, T., Malhotra, R., & Hu, A. J. (2012). The survey on informal caregiving: The summary report for MCYS. Retrieved June 1, 2013, from https://app.msf.gov.sg/Portals/0/Informal%20Caregiver%20Survey%20Summary%20Report%20(upload).pdf.

  27. Contador, I., Fernandez-Calvo, B., Palenzuela, D. L., Migueis, S., & Ramos, F. (2012). Prediction of burden in family caregivers of patients with dementia: A perspective of optimism based on generalized expectancies of control. Aging and Mental Health, 16(6), 675–682.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Haro, J. M., Kahle-Wrobleski, K., Bruno, G., et al. (2014). Analysis of burden in caregivers of people with Alzheimer’s disease using self-report and supervision hours. Journal of Nutrition, Health and Aging, 18(7), 677–684.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Reed, C., Belger, M., Dell’agnello, G., et al. (2014). Caregiver burden in Alzheimer’s disease: Differential associations in adult–child and spousal caregivers in the GERAS observational study. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra, 4(1), 51–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Bhattacharya, S., Vogel, A., Hansen, M. L., et al. (2010). Generic and disease-specific measures of quality of life in patients with mild Alzheimer’s disease. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra, 30, 327–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Coucill, W., Bryan, S., Bentham, P., Buckley, A., & Laight, A. (2001). EQ-5D in patients with dementia: An investigation of inter-rater agreement. Medical Care, 39(8), 760–771.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Karlawish, J. H., Zbrozek, A., Kinosian, B., Gregory, A., Ferguson, A., & Glick, H. A. (2008). Preference-based quality of life in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s and Dementia, 4(3), 193–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wang, W. (2016). Economic and health related quality of life outcomes among community-dwelling dementia patients in Singapore. PhD Dissertation, National University of Singapore, Singapore.

  34. Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research 1975, 12(3), 189–198.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Feng, L., Chong, M. S., Lim, W. S., & Ng, T. P. The Modified Mini-Mental State Examination test: Normative data for Singapore Chinese older adults and its performance in detecting early cognitive impairment. Singapore Medical Journal, 53(7), 458–462.

  37. Morris, J. C. (1993). The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): Current version and scoring rules. Neurology, 43(11), 2412–2414.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Royston, P., & Altman, D. G. (1994). Regression using fractional polynomials of continuous covariates: Parsimonious parametric modeling (with discussion). Applied Statistics, 43, 429–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2013). An introduction to statistical learning, with applications in R. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  40. Greene, W. H. (2012). Econometric analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Lee, C. F., Ng, R., Luo, N., & Cheung, Y. B. (2018) Development of conversion functions mapping the FACT-B total score to the EQ-5D–5L utility value by three linking methods and comparison with the ordinary least square method. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-018-0404-8 (E-pub ahead of print).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Quantitative Medicine, Duke-NUS Medical School, Level 6, Academia, 20 College Road, Singapore, 169856, Singapore

    Yin Bun Cheung

  2. Center for Child Health Research, University of Tampere and Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland

    Yin Bun Cheung

  3. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Hui Xing Tan, Nan Luo, Gerald C. H. Koh & Hwee Lin Wee

  4. Department of Hospital Management, Fudan University, Shanghai, China

    Vivian Wei Wang

  5. Department of Neurology, National Neuroscience Institute, Singapore, Singapore

    Nagaendran Kandiah

  6. Department of Pharmacy, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Hwee Lin Wee

Authors
  1. Yin Bun Cheung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hui Xing Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vivian Wei Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nagaendran Kandiah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nan Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gerald C. H. Koh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hwee Lin Wee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

VWW, NK and HLW designed and conducted the cross-sectional study of dementia patients and caregivers. YBC and HLW conceived this specific aim for mapping ADL inventory to health utilities. YBC, HLW, NL and GCHK contributed to the development of the analysis strategy. YBC and HXT implemented the statistical analysis. YBC wrote the first draft of the article. All the authors critically reviewed the article and agreed with the submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yin Bun Cheung.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the Ethical Standards of the Institutional and/or National Research Committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cheung, Y.B., Tan, H.X., Wang, V.W. et al. Mapping the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory to the Health Utility Index Mark III. Qual Life Res 28, 131–139 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1991-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1991-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation