Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Use of Mapping to Estimate Health State Utility Values

  • Review Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Mapping functions are estimated using regression analyses and are frequently used to predict health state utility values (HSUVs) in decision analytic models. Mapping functions are used when evidence on the required preference-based measure (PBM) is not available, or where modelled values are required for a decision analytic model, for example to control for important sociodemographic variables (such as age or gender). This article provides an overview of the latest recommendations including pre-mapping considerations, the mapping process including data requirements for undertaking the estimation of mapping functions, regression models for estimating mapping functions, assessing performance and reporting standards for mapping studies. Examples in rheumatoid arthritis are used for illustration. When reporting the results of mapping standards the following should be reported: a description of the dataset used (including distributions of variables used) and any analysis used to inform the selection of the model type and model specification. The regression method and specification should be justified, and as summary statistics may mask systematic bias in errors, plots comparing observed and predicted HSUVs. The final model (coefficients, error term(s), variance and covariance) should be reported together with a worked example. It is important to ensure that good practice is followed as any mapping functions will only be as appropriate and accurate as the method used to obtain them; for example, mapping should not be used if there is no overlap between the explanatory and target variables.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wailoo AJ, Hernandez-Alava M, Manca A, Mejia A, Ray J, Crawford B, et al. Mapping to estimate health-state utility from non-preference-based outcome measures: an ISPOR good practices for outcomes research task force report. Value Health. 2017;20:18–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Longworth L, Rowen D. The use of mapping methods to estimate health state utility values. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 10. 2011.

  3. Ara R, Brazier J, Peasgood T, Paisley S. The identification, review and synthesis of health state utility values from the literature. PharmacoEconomics. 2017. doi:10.1007/s40273-017-0547-8.

  4. Dakin H. Review of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: an online database. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11(1):151.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Longworth L, Rowen D. Mapping to obtain EQ-5D utility values for use in NICE health technology assessments. Value Health. 2013;16:202–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gray AM, Rivero-Arias O, Clarke PM. Estimating the association between SF-12 responses and EQ-5D utility values by response mapping. Med Decis Mak. 2006;26(1):18–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ara R, Kearns B, Brazier JE. Predicting preference-based utility values using partial proportional odds models. BMC Res Notes. 2014;7(1):438.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Hurst NP, Kind P, Ruta D, Hunter M, Stubbings A. Measuring health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: validity, responsiveness and reliability of EuroQol (EQ-5D). Rheumatology. 1997;36(5):551–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab and abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis after the failure of a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor: a systematic review and economic evaluation. London: NICE; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brazier J, Yang Y, Tsuchiya A, Rowen D. A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur J Health Econ. 2010;11(2):215–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hernandez Alava M, Wailoo AJ, Ara R. Tails from the peak district: adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models of EQ-5D questionnaire health state utility values. Value in Health. 2012;15(3):550–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hernandez Alava M, Wailoo AJ, Wolfe F, Michaud K. The relationship between EQ-5D, HAQ and pain in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology. 2013;52(5):944–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Petrou S, Rivero-Arias O, Dakin H, Longworth L, Oppe M, Froud R, et al. The MAPS reporting statement for studies mapping onto generic preference-based outcome measures: explanation and elaboration. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(10):993–1011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ara R, Brazier J. Predicting the short form-6D preference-based index using the eight mean short form-36 health dimension scores: estimating preference-based health-related utilities when patient level data are not available. Value Health. 2009;12(2):346–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pennington B, Davis S. Mapping from the Health Assessment Questionnaire to the EQ-5D: the impact of different algorithms on cost-effectiveness results. Value Health. 2014;17(8):762–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hawthorne G, Buchbinder R, Defina J. Functional status and health-related quality of life assessment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Working Paper 116. Centre for Health Program Evaluation. 2000.

  17. Marra CA, Marion SA, Guh DP, Najafzadeh M, Wolfe F, Esdaile JM, et al. Not all quality-adjusted life years are equal. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(6):616–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rowen D, Brazier J, Roberts J. Mapping SF-36 onto the EQ-5D index: how reliable is the relationship? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009;7:27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Prof. Jon Karnon, Ph.D., of The University of Adelaide and Dr. Andrew Lloyd, Ph.D., of Bladen Associates Ltd for their editorial review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, UK

    Roberta Ara, Donna Rowen & Clara Mukuria

Authors
  1. Roberta Ara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Donna Rowen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Clara Mukuria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RA wrote the manuscript. DR reviewed the literature and contributed to the manuscript. CM contributed to the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donna Rowen.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure statement

This article is published in a special edition journal supplement wholly funded by Takeda Pharmaceutical International AG, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

This study was funded by an unrestricted Grant from Takeda Pharmaceuticals International AG.

Conflict of interest

RA no conflicts of interest. DR has no conflict of interest. CM has no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 25 kb)

Appendix

Appendix

Box A1 Sources used in the RA case-study

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ara, R., Rowen, D. & Mukuria, C. The Use of Mapping to Estimate Health State Utility Values. PharmacoEconomics 35 (Suppl 1), 57–66 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0548-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0548-7

Search

Navigation