Mapping CHU9D Utility Scores from the PedsQLTM 4.0 SF-15
- 516 Downloads
The Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ 4.0 Short Form 15 Generic Core Scales (hereafter the PedsQL) and the Child Health Utility-9 Dimensions (CHU9D) are two generic instruments designed to measure health-related quality of life in children and adolescents in the general population and paediatric patient groups living with specific health conditions. Although the PedsQL is widely used among paediatric patient populations, presently it is not possible to directly use the scores from the instrument to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for application in economic evaluation because it produces summary scores which are not preference-based.
This paper examines different econometric mapping techniques for estimating CHU9D utility scores from the PedsQL for the purpose of calculating QALYs for cost-utility analysis.
The PedsQL and the CHU9D were completed by a community sample of 755 Australian adolescents aged 15–17 years. Seven regression models were estimated: ordinary least squares estimator, generalised linear model, robust MM estimator, multivariate factorial polynomial estimator, beta-binomial estimator, finite mixture model and multinomial logistic model. The mean absolute error (MAE) and the mean squared error (MSE) were used to assess predictive ability of the models.
The MM estimator with stepwise-selected PedsQL dimension scores as explanatory variables had the best predictive accuracy using MAE and the equivalent beta-binomial model had the best predictive accuracy using MSE.
Our mapping algorithm facilitates the estimation of health-state utilities for use within economic evaluations where only PedsQL data is available and is suitable for use in community-based adolescents aged 15–17 years. Applicability of the algorithm in younger populations should be assessed in further research.
KeywordsMean Square Error Ordinary Little Square Mapping Algorithm Mean Absolute Error Finite Mixture Model
We would like to thank all the study participants who generously gave up their time to participate in this study.
CMK analysed the data, interpreted the results, wrote the first draft and will act as a guarantor for the work. GC formulated the idea for the study, oversaw the design and collection of data, analysed the data, interpreted the results and made critical revisions to the manuscript. RR interpreted the results and made critical revisions to the manuscript. KS formulated the idea for the study, oversaw the design and collection of data, interpreted the results and made critical revisions to the manuscript. KDP interpreted the results and made critical revisions to the manuscript. JR formulated the idea for the study, oversaw the design and collection of data, interpreted the results and made critical revisions to the manuscript. All authors approved the final draft.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee, Flinders University (Project Number 5508).
CMK, GC, RR, KS, KDP and JR declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This study was funded by an Australian NHMRC Project Grant (Grant Number 1021899) entitled ‘Adolescent values for the economic evaluation of adolescent health care treatment and preventive programs’.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Tsuchiya A, Salomon J. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.Google Scholar
- 3.Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
- 4.Harris A, Bulfone L. Getting value for money: “The Australian experience”. In: International M-H, Jost T, editors. Health care coverage determinations: an international comparative study. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2004.Google Scholar
- 5.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. National Health Service. 2010.Google Scholar
- 15.Ratcliffe J, Flynn T, Terlich F, Stevens K, Brazier J, Sawyer M. Developing adolescent-specific health state values for economic evaluation: an application of profile case best-worst scaling to the Child Health Utility 9D. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(8):713–27. doi: 10.2165/11597900-000000000-00000.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Ratcliffe J, Huynh E, Chen G, Stevens K, Swait J, Brazier J, et al. Valuing the child health utility 9D: using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm. Soc Sci Med. 2016;157:48–59. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.03.042.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Stevens K, Ratcliffe J. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation in adolescence: an assessment of the practicality and validity of the child health utility 9D in the Australian adolescent population. Value Health. 2012;15(8):1092–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.07.011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Chen G, Flynn T, Stevens K, Brazier J, Huynh E, Sawyer M, et al. Assessing the health-related quality of life of Australian adolescents: an empirical comparison of the child health utility 9D and EQ-5D-Y instruments. Value Health. 2015;18(4):432–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Boers M, Verhoeven AC, Markusse HM, van de Laar MA, Westhovens R, van Denderen JC, et al. Randomised comparison of combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate and sulphasalazine with sulphasalazine alone in early rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet. 1997;350(9074):309–18. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(97)01300-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. 2015.Google Scholar
- 31.Huang IC, Frangakis C, Atkinson MJ, Willke RJ, Leite WL, Vogel WB, et al. Addressing ceiling effects in health status measures: a comparison of techniques applied to measures for people with HIV disease. Health Serv Res. 2008;43(1 Pt 1):327–39. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2007.00745.x.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 32.Payakachat N, Summers KH, Pleil AM, Murawski MM, Thomas J 3rd, Jennings K, et al. Predicting EQ-5D utility scores from the 25-item National Eye Institute Vision Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25) in patients with age-related macular degeneration. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(7):801–13. doi: 10.1007/s11136-009-9499-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Gujarati DN. Basic econometrics. 4th ed. Boston. Mass. London: McGraw-Hill; 2003.Google Scholar
- 36.Royston P, Sauerbrei W. Multivariable modeling with cubic regression splines: a principled approach. Stata J. 2007;7(1):45–70.Google Scholar
- 37.Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.Google Scholar
- 44.Deb P. Finite mixture models. 2008. http://repec.org/snasug08/deb_fmm_slides.pdf. Accessed 11 Sept 2016.
- 46.Le QA, Doctor JN. Probabilistic mapping of descriptive health status responses onto health state utilities using Bayesian networks: an empirical analysis converting SF-12 into EQ-5D utility index in a national US sample. Med Care. 2011;49(5):451–60. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318207e9a8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 47.Koch GG. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient. Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2004. doi: 10.1002/0471667196.ess1275
- 49.Shcherbakov MV, Brebels B, Shcherbakova NL, Tyukov AP, Janovsky TA, Kamae VA. A survey of forecast error measures. World Appl Sci J 24 (Information Technologies in Modern Industry, Education and Society). 2013;24(24):171–6.Google Scholar
- 55.Tsuchiya A, Brazier JE, McColl E, Parkin D. Deriving preference-based single indices from non-preference based condition-specific instruments: Converting AQLQ into EQ5D indices Sheffield Health Economics Group Discussion Paper Series. 2002; Ref 02/1.Google Scholar
- 59.Australian Demographic Statistics, 2015, ‘Table 8: Estimated resident population, by age and sex—at 30 June 2015’, data cube: Excel spreadsheet, cat. no. 31010do002_201512 [database on the Internet]. Australian Bureau of Statistics 2015. Available from: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3101.0Dec%202015?OpenDocument. Accessed: 6 Sept 2016.
- 60.Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Young Australians: their health and wellbeing 2011 (Cat. no. PHE 140). Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2011.Google Scholar