Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Estimates of health utility scores in chronic kidney disease

  • Nephrology – Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Coverage decisions in publicly funded healthcare systems require a formal, systematic and transparent assessment process for policies related to distribution of resources. The process is complex and employs multiple types of information, such as clinical effectiveness, costs and health utility scores which are used to produce quality-adjusted life years. The purpose of this study was to create health utility scores for CKD patients within the Canadian population.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional study of CKD patients. We administered the Short-Form 36 Quality of Life Questions to all participants and employed the Short-Form 6 Dimension index to create health utility scores which were created using a set of parametric preference weights, nonparametric preference weights and ordinal health state valuation techniques obtained from a sample of the general population.

Results

Utility values in the dialysis group were lower than in the non-dialysis group. There was a significant relationship between age and health utility scores: As age increases, health utility scores decrease. Diabetes was associated with lower health utility scores in dialysis patients, whereas other covariates did not reach levels of statistical significance in our stepwise regression models. The parametric Bayesian model and standard gamble approach yielded the same results, while the correlation between the nonparametric and parametric methods was above 0.9.

Conclusion

Health utility scores were low relative to the general population norm in our study cohort. Longitudinal assessment of CKD patients to capture possible fluctuations in health utility scores may add useful information.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD–MBD Work Group (2009) KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, prevention, and treatment of chronic kidney disease–mineral and bone disorder (CKD–MBD). Kidney Int 76(Suppl 113):S1–S130

    Google Scholar 

  2. Eriksson JK, Neovius M, Jacobson SH, Elinder CG, Hylander B (2016) Healthcare costs in chronic kidney disease and renal replacement therapy: a population-based cohort study in Sweden. BMJ Open 6(10):e012062

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Osthus TB, Dammen T, Sandvik L, Bruun CM, Nordhus IH, Os I (2010) Health-related quality of life and depression in dialysis patients: associations with current smoking. Scand J Urol Nephrol 44(1):46–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Smith DH, Gullion CM, Nichols G, Keith DS, Brown JB (2004) Cost of medical care for chronic kidney disease and comorbidity among enrollees in a large HMO population. J Am Soc Nephrol JASN 15(5):1300–1306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Covic A, Rastogi A (2013) Hyperphosphatemia in patients with ESRD: assessing the current evidence linking outcomes with treatment adherence. BMC Nephrol 14(1):153

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Foundation NK (2005) KDOQI clinical practice guidelines for cardiovascular disease in dialysis patients. In: Guideline 14: smoking, physical activity, and psychological factors

  7. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30(6):473–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Dewey JE (2000) How to score version 2 of the SF-36 health survey. QualityMetric Incorporated, Lincoln

    Google Scholar 

  9. McCabe C, Brazier J, Gilks P et al (2006) Using rank data to estimate health state utility models. J Health Econ 25(3):418–431

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX (1992) How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J 146(4):473–481

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Whitehead SJ, Ali S (2010) Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull 96:5–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sekercioglu N, Curtis B, Murphy S, Barrett B (2015) Sleep quality and its correlates in patients with chronic kidney disease: a cross-sectional design. Ren Fail 37(5):757–762

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sekercioglu N, Curtis B, Murphy S, Barrett B (2015) Sleep apnea in patients with chronic kidney disease: a single center experience. Ren Fail 37(1):83–87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Brazier JE, Roberts J (2004) The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care 42(9):851–859

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kharroubi SA, Brazier JE, Roberts J, O’Hagan A (2007) Modelling SF-6D health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. J Econ 26(3):597–612

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ware JE Jr (2000) SF-36 health survey update. Spine 25(24):3130–3139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kharroubi SA, Brazier JE, Roberts J, O’Hagan A (2007) Modelling SF-6D health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. J Health Econ 26(3):597–612

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Norman R, Viney R, Brazier J, Burgess L, Cronin P, King M et al (2014) Valuing SF-6D Health States Using a Discrete Choice Experiment. Med Decis Mak Int J Soc Med Decis Mak 34(6):773–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. The QualityMetric Health Outcomes TM Scoring Software 4.5 [computer program]. Version 4.5.4330.22306

  20. Fang M, Oremus M, Tarride JE, Raina P (2016) A comparison of health utility scores calculated using United Kingdom and Canadian preference weights in persons with Alzheimer’s disease and their caregivers. Health Qual Life Outcomes 14(1):105

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Naglie G, Hogan DB, Krahn M et al (2011) Predictors of patient self-ratings of quality of life in Alzheimer disease: cross-sectional results from the Canadian Alzheimer’s Disease Quality of Life Study. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 19(10):881–890

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Gonzalez-Saenz de Tejada M, Bilbao A, Bare M et al (2016) Association between social support, functional status and change in health related quality of life and changes in anxiety and depression in colorectal cancer patients. Psycho-Oncology 25(8):891–897

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Li C, Mao W, Liu X (2014) Depression, anxiety and reduced quality of life in predialysis: differences across the CKD stages? Int J Clin Pract 68(5):657–658

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Zucchella C, Bartolo M, Bernini S, Picascia M, Sinforiani E (2015) Quality of life in Alzheimer disease: a comparison of patients’ and caregivers’ points of view. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 29(1):50–54

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ahmad H, Taylor BV, van der Mei I et al (2016) The impact of multiple sclerosis severity on health state utility values: evidence from Australia. In: Multiple sclerosis. Houndmills, Basingstoke, England

  26. Casellas F, Arenas JI, Baudet JS et al (2005) Impairment of health-related quality of life in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a Spanish multicenter study. Inflamm Bowel Dis 11(5):488–496

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gregor JC, McDonald JW, Klar N et al (1997) An evaluation of utility measurement in Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 3(4):265–276

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M (2002) The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 21(2):271–292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kind P, Spilker B (1996) The EuroQol instrument: an index of health-related quality of life. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  30. Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G (2003) The Health Utilities Index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:54

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Wyld M, Morton RL, Hayen A, Howard K, Webster AC (2012) A systematic review and meta-analysis of utility-based quality of life in chronic kidney disease treatments. PLoS Med 9(9):e1001307

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Revicki DA (1992) Relationship between health utility and psychometric health status measures. Medical Care 30(5 Suppl):Ms274–Ms282

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors’ contributions

NS, BB, BC and SM were involved in conception and design; NS analyzed the data; NS, BB, BC, SM and GB were involved in interpretation of results; NS, BB, BC and SM drafted the manuscript; NS, BB, BC and SM reviewed and approved the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, 300 Prince Philip Drive, St. John’s, NL, Canada

    Nigar Sekercioglu, Bryan Curtis, Sean Murphy & Brendan Barrett

  2. Division of Nephrology, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, 300 Prince Philip Drive, St. John’s, NL, Canada

    Bryan Curtis, Sean Murphy & Brendan Barrett

  3. Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health, McMaster University, 3 Charlton Ave E, 2nd Floor, Hamilton, ON, L8N 1Y3, Canada

    Gord Blackhouse

Authors
  1. Nigar Sekercioglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bryan Curtis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sean Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gord Blackhouse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Brendan Barrett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nigar Sekercioglu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

We conducted this study in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from the individual study participants for our original project. This project reports a post hoc analysis, and additional consent was not required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sekercioglu, N., Curtis, B., Murphy, S. et al. Estimates of health utility scores in chronic kidney disease. Int Urol Nephrol 49, 2043–2049 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-017-1664-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-017-1664-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation