Advertisement

Bayesian Hierarchical Models for Meta-Analysis of Quality-of-Life Outcomes: An Application in Multimorbidity

  • Susanne SchmitzEmail author
  • Tatjana T. Makovski
  • Roisin Adams
  • Marjan van den Akker
  • Saverio Stranges
  • Maurice P. Zeegers
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is a key outcome in cost-utility analyses, which are commonly used to inform healthcare decisions. Different instruments exist to evaluate HRQoL, however while some jurisdictions have a preferred system, no gold standard exists. Standard meta-analysis struggles with the variety of outcome measures, which may result in the exclusion of potentially relevant evidence.

Objective

Using a case study in multimorbidity, the objective of this analysis is to illustrate how a Bayesian hierarchical model can be used to combine data across different instruments. The outcome of interest is the slope relating HRQoL to the number of coexisting conditions.

Methods

We propose a three-level Bayesian hierarchical model to systematically include a large number of studies evaluating HRQoL using multiple instruments. Random effects assumptions yield instrument-level estimates benefitting from borrowing strength across the evidence base. This is particularly useful where little evidence is available for the outcome of choice for further evaluation.

Results

Our analysis estimated a reduction in quality of life of 3.8–4.1% per additional condition depending on HRQoL instrument. Uncertainty was reduced by approximately 80% for the instrument with the least evidence.

Conclusion

Bayesian hierarchical models may provide a useful modelling approach to systematically synthesize data from HRQoL studies.

Notes

Author Contributions

SSc extracted the data, conducted the statistical analysis, interpreted the results, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. TM conducted the literature review, extracted and checked the data, and provided detailed feedback on the manuscript. RA provided important input on the application of HRQoL in CUA, and provided detailed feedback on the manuscript. MvA extracted data and provided feedback on the manuscript. SSt and MZ reviewed and provided important feedback both during the analysis phase and for the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

No funding was received to conduct this study.

Conflict of interest

Susanne Schmitz, Tatjana Makovski, Roisin Adams, Marjan van den Akker, Saverio Stranges, and Maurice P. Zeegers have no conflicts of interest to report in respect of this study.

Supplementary material

40273_2019_843_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (494 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 494 kb)
40273_2019_843_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (429 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 429 kb)
40273_2019_843_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (753 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 753 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    García-Mochón L, et al. HTA and decision-making processes in Central, Eastern and South Eastern Europe: results from a survey. Health Policy. 2019;123(2):182–90.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Drummond MF, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care. 1992;30(6):473–83.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Skevington SM, Lotfy M, O’Connell KA. The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A report from the WHOQOL group. Qual life Res. 2004;13(2):299–310.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oppe M, Devlin NJ, Szende A. EQ-5D value sets: inventory, comparative review and user guide. New York: Springer; 2007.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–92.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Neumann PJ, Goldie SJ, Weinstein MC. Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21(1):587–611.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oppe M, et al. EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(10):993–1004.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oppe M, et al. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2014;17(4):445–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brazier JE, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004;42(9):851–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tsuchiya A, Brazier J, Roberts J. Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets. J Health Econ. 2006;25(2):334–46.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Longworth L, Bryan S. An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Health Econ. 2003;12(12):1061–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Earnshaw J, Lewis G. NICE guide to the methods of technology appraisal. New York: Springer; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics Ireland. Applicant template for submission of full pharmacoeconomic assessments to the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics [cited 11 Sep 2019]. http://www.ncpe.ie/submission-process/submission-templates/format-of-full-submissions/.
  15. 15.
    Ara R, et al. The identification, review and synthesis of health state utility values from the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(1):43–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Evans D. Hierarchy of evidence: a framework for ranking evidence evaluating healthcare interventions. J Clin Nurs. 2003;12(1):77–84.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Petrou S, Kwon J, Madan JJP. A practical guide to conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of health state utility values. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(9):1043–61.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van den Akker M, Buntinx F, Knottnerus JA. Comorbidity or multimorbidity: what’s in a name? A review of literature. Eur J Gen Pract. 1996;2(2):65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fortin M, et al. A systematic review of prevalence studies on multimorbidity: toward a more uniform methodology. Ann Fam Med. 2012;10(2):142–51.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Agborsangaya CB, et al. Multimorbidity prevalence and patterns across socioeconomic determinants: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(1):201.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fortin M, et al. Prevalence of multimorbidity among adults seen in family practice. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(3):223–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Glynn LG, et al. The prevalence of multimorbidity in primary care and its effect on health care utilization and cost. Fam Pract. 2011;28(5):516–23.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marengoni A, et al. Aging with multimorbidity: a systematic review of the literature. Ageing Res Rev. 2011;10(4):430–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Makovski TT, et al. Multimorbidity and quality of life: systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Ageing Res Rev. 2019;53:100903.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Borenstein M, et al. Introduction to meta-analysis. New York: Wiley; 2011.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. New York: Wiley; 2008. p. 243–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controll Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002;21(16):2313–24.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lu G, Ades A. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004;23(20):3105–24.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thompson SG, Higgins JP. How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1559–73.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dias S, et al. NICE DSU technical support document 2: a generalised linear modelling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2011.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sutton AJ, Abrams KR. Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis. Stat Methods Med Res. 2001;10(4):277–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mesgarpour B, et al. Safety of off-label erythropoiesis stimulating agents in critically ill patients: a meta-analysis. Intensive care Med. 2013;39(11):1896–908.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schmitz S, Adams R, Walsh C. Incorporating data from various trial designs into a mixed treatment comparison model. Stat Med. 2013;32(17):2935–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brazier J, et al. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004;13(9):873–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bryan S, Longworth L. Measuring health-related utility. Eur J Health Econ. 2005;6(3):253–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    McDonough CM, et al. Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-36-derived societal health state values among spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT) participants. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(5):1321–32.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Moher D, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Core Team R. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Core Team; 2013.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hanmer J. Predicting an SF-6D preference-based score using MCS and PCS scores from the SF-12 or SF-36. Value Health. 2009;12(6):958–66.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lunn DJ, et al. WinBUGS—a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Stat Comput. 2000;10(4):325–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sturtz S, Ligges U, Gelman AE. R2WinBUGS: a package for running WinBUGS from R. J Stat Softw. 2005;12(3).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Prevost TC, Abrams KR, Jones DR. Hierarchical models in generalized synthesis of evidence: an example based on studies of breast cancer screening. Stat Med. 2000;19(24):3359–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36(3):1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Barra M, et al. Examining the relationship between health-related quality of life and increasing numbers of diagnoses. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(12):2823–32.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rabadi MH, Vincent AS. Health status profile and health-related quality of life of veterans attending an out-patient clinic. Med Sci Monit. 2013;19:386–92.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hanmer J, et al. Three methods tested to model SF-6D health utilities for health states involving comorbidity/co-occurring conditions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(3):331–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lawson KD, et al. Double trouble: the impact of multimorbidity and deprivation on preference-weighted health related quality of life a cross sectional analysis of the Scottish Health Survey. Int J Equity Health. 2013;12:67.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Agborsangaya CB, et al. Comparing the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: measurement properties and association with chronic conditions and multimorbidity in the general population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):74.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Agborsangaya CB, et al. Health-related quality of life and healthcare utilization in multimorbidity: results of a cross-sectional survey. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(4):791–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Alonso-Morán E, et al. Health-related quality of life and multimorbidity in community-dwelling telecare-assisted elders in the Basque Country. Eur J Intern Med. 2015;26(3):169–75.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ferrer A, et al. Health-related quality of life in nonagenarians: gender, functional status and nutritional risk as associated factors. Med Clin (Barc). 2010;134(7):303–6 (in Spanish).PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gerber AM, et al. A cohort study of elderly people in Bloemfontein, South Africa, to determine health-related quality of life and functional abilities. S Afr Med J. 2016;106(3):298–301.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Heyworth IT, et al. How do common chronic conditions affect health-related quality of life? Br J Gen Pract. 2009;59(568):e353–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hodek JM, Ruhe A, Greiner W. Multimorbidity and health-related quality of life among elderly persons. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2009;52(12):1188–201 (in German).PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kim KI, Lee JH, Kim CH. Impaired health-related quality of life in elderly women is associated with multimorbidity: results from the korean national health and nutrition examination survey. Gender Med. 2012;9(5):309–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lang K, et al. The impact of multimorbidity on quality of life among midlife women: findings from a US nationally representative survey. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2015;24(5):374–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Li J, et al. Patterns of multimorbidity and their association with health outcomes within Yorkshire, England: baseline results from the Yorkshire Health Study. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:649.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Mujica-Mota RE, et al. Common patterns of morbidity and multi-morbidity and their impact on health-related quality of life: evidence from a national survey. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(4):909–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Quah JHM, et al. Health-related quality of life of older Asian patients with multimorbidity in primary care in a developed nation. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2017;17(10):1429–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sakthong P, et al. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in Thai patients with chronic diseases. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(12):3015–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan VH, Bayliss EA. The impact of co-morbidity burden on preference-based health-related quality of life in the United States. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(5):431–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Vogel I, et al. The impact of perceived social support and sense of coherence on health-related quality of life in multimorbid primary care patients. Chronic Illn. 2012;8(4):296–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    N’Goran AA, et al. Comparing the self-perceived quality of life of multimorbid patients and the general population using the EQ-5D-3L. PLoS One. 2017;12(12):e0188499.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Peters M, et al. Quality of life and burden of morbidity in primary care users with multimorbidity. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2018;9:103.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Cheng L, et al. Health related quality of life in pregeriatric patients with chronic diseases at urban, public supported clinics. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:63.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Fortin M, et al. Relationship between multimorbidity and health-related quality of life of patients in primary care. Qual Life Res. 2006;15(1):83–91.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Garrido-Abejar M, et al. Factors associated with health-related quality of life in the institutionalised elderly: differences between men and women. Enferm Clin. 2012;22(1):27–34 (in Spanish).PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Lim L, Jin AZ, Ng TP. Anxiety and depression, chronic physical conditions, and quality of life in an urban population sample study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2012;47(7):1047–53.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Loza E, et al. Multimorbidity: prevalence, effect on quality of life and daily functioning, and variation of this effect when one condition is a rheumatic disease. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2009;38(4):312–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Luo J, et al. Newly developed chronic conditions and changes in health-related quality of life in postmenopausal women. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63(11):2349–57.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Naveiro-Rilo JC, et al. Quality of life in the elderly on polymedication and with multiple morbidities. Rev Esp Geriatr Gerontol. 2014;49(4):158–64 (in Spanish).PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Prazeres F, Santiago L. Relationship between health-related quality of life, perceived family support and unmet health needs in adult patients with multimorbidity attending primary care in Portugal: a multicentre cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14(1):156.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Tyack Z, et al. Predictors of health-related quality of life in people with a complex chronic disease including multimorbidity: a longitudinal cohort study. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(10):2579–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Williams JS, Egede LE. The association between multimorbidity and quality of life, health status and functional disability. Am J Med Sci. 2016;352(1):45–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    McCullagh L, et al. Examining the feasibility and utility of estimating partial expected value of perfect information (via a nonparametric approach) as part of the reimbursement decision-making process in Ireland: application to drugs for cancer. PharmacoEconomics. 2017;35(11):1177–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    McCabe C, Edlin R, Hall P. Navigating time and uncertainty in health technology appraisal: would a map help? Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(9):731–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Harris J. Double jeopardy and the veil of ignorance: a reply. J Med Ethics. 1995;21(3):151–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Competence Center for Methodology and Statistics, Department of Population HealthLuxembourg Institute of HealthStrassenLuxembourg
  2. 2.Epidemiology and Public Health Research Unit, Department of Population HealthLuxembourg Institute of HealthStrassenLuxembourg
  3. 3.Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI)Maastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Chairgroup of Complex Genetics and EpidemiologyNutrition and Metabolism in Translational Research (NUTRIM), Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  5. 5.National Centre for PharmacoeconomicsSt James’s HospitalDublinIreland
  6. 6.Institute of General PracticeJohann Wolfgang Goethe UniversityFrankfurt am MainGermany
  7. 7.Academic Centre of General Practice, Department of Public Health and Primary CareKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  8. 8.Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine and DentistryWestern UniversityLondonCanada
  9. 9.Department of Family Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine and DentistryWestern UniversityLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations