Abstract
Purpose
To assess different mapping methods for the estimation of a group’s mean EQ-5D score based on responses to the Oxford hip score (OHS) questionnaire.
Methods
Four models were considered: a) linear regression using total OHS as a continuous regressor; b) linear regression employing responses to the twelve OHS questions as categorical predictors; c) two-part approach combining logistic and linear regression; and d) response mapping. The models were internally validated on the estimation data set, which included OHS and EQ-5D scores for total hip replacements, both before and six months after procedure for 1,759 operations. An external validation was also performed.
Results
All models estimated the mean EQ-5D score within 0.005 of an observed health-state utility estimate, ordinary least squares (OLS) continuous being the most accurate and OLS categorical the most consistent. Age, gender and deprivation did not improve the models. More accurate estimations at the individual level were achieved for higher scores of observed OHS and EQ-5D.
Conclusion
Based on these results, when EQ-5D scores are not available, answers to the OHS questionnaire can be used to estimate a group’s mean EQ-5D with a high degree of accuracy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- OHS:
-
Oxford hip score
- THR:
-
Total hip replacement
- OLS:
-
Ordinary least squares
- HRQL:
-
Health-related quality of life
- TTU:
-
Transfer to utility regression
- MAE:
-
Mean absolute error
References
Bozic, K. J., Saleh, K. J., Rosenberg, A. G., & Rubash, H. E. (2004). Economic evaluation in total hip arthroplasty: Analysis and review of the literature. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 19(2), 180–189.
Maynard, A. (1991). Developing the health care market. The Economic Journal, 101(408), 1277–1286.
Bourne, R. B., Rorabeck, C. H., Laupacis, A., Feeny, D., Wong, C., Tugwell, P., et al. (1994). A randomized clinical trial comparing cemented to cementless total hip replacement in 250 osteoarthritic patients: The impact on health related quality of life and cost effectiveness. Iowa Orthopaedic Journal, 14, 108–114.
Chang, R. W., Pellissier, J. M., & Hazen, G. B. (1996). A cost-effectiveness analysis of total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the hip. JAMA, 275(11), 858–865.
Ethgen, O., & Reginster, J.-Y. (2004). Degenerative musculoskeletal disease. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 63(1), 1–3.
Murray, D., Carr, A., & Bulstrode, C. (1995). Which primary total hip replacement? Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery British, 77-B(4), 520–527.
National Joint Registry for England and Wales. (2010). 7th Annual Report.
Department of Health. (2008). Guidance on the routine collection of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs)—For the NHS in England 2009/10: Department of Health.
Murray, D. W., Fitzpatrick, R., Rogers, K., Pandit, H., Beard, D. J., Carr, A. J., et al. (2007). The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery British, 89-B(8), 1010–1014.
Dawson, J., Fitzpatrick, R., Carr, A., & Murray, D. (1996). Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery British, 78-B(2), 185–190.
Dawson, J., Fitzpatrick, R., Frost, S., Gundle, R., McLardy-Smith, P., & Murray, D. (2001). Evidence for the validity of a patient-based instrument for assessment of outcome after revision hip replacement. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery British, 83-B(8), 1125–1129.
Field, R. E., Cronin, M. D., & Singh, P. J. (2005). The Oxford hip scores for primary and revision hip replacement. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery British, 87-B(5), 618–622.
Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., & Williams, A. (1996). The time trade-off method: Results from a general population study. Health Economics, 5(2), 141–154.
Brazier, J., Yang, Y., Tsuchiya, A., & Rowen, D. (2010). A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. The European Journal of Health Economics, 11(2), 215–225.
Bansback, N., Marra, C., Tsuchiya, A., Anis, A., Guh, D., Hammond, T., et al. (2007). Using the health assessment questionnaire to estimate preference-based single indices in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care & Research, 57(6), 963–971.
Grootendorst, P., Marshall, D., Pericak, D., Bellamy, N., Feeny, D., & Torrance, G. W. (2007). A model to estimate health utilities index mark 3 utility scores from WOMAC index scores in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. The Journal of Rheumatology, 34(3), 534–542.
Browne, J., Jamieson, L., Lewsey, J., Meulen, J. V. d., Black, N., Cairns, J., et al. (2007). Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in elective surgery—Report to the Department of Health. Retrieved 17 November, 2010, from http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/php/hsrp/research/proms_report_12_dec_07.pdf.
Mortimer, D., & Segal, L. (2008). Comparing the incomparable? A systematic review of competing techniques for converting descriptive measures of health status into QALY-weights. Medical Decision Making, 28(1), 66–89.
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.
Tsuchiya, A., Brazier, J., McColl, E., & Parkin, D. (2002). Deriving preference-based single indices from non-preference based condition-specific instruments: Converting AQLQ into EQ5D indices: School of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield.
Crott, R., & Briggs, A. (2010). Mapping the QLQ-C30 quality of life cancer questionnaire to EQ-5D patient preferences. The European Journal of Health Economics, 11(4), 427–434.
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research funding scheme. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. Support was also received from the NIHR Biomedical Research Unit into Musculoskeletal Disease, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre and University of Oxford. We would like to acknowledge Dr. Richard E. Field for kindly allowing us to use the data collected at the South West London Elective Orthopaedics Centre under his supervision and for reviewing the final draft. We are grateful to the COASt project group at the Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Muskuloskeletal Sciences at the University of Oxford and especially Dr. Kassim Javaid and Dr. Amit Kiran for the helpful discussions on earlier versions of this paper. We would also like to thank Dr. Oliver Rivero-Arias from the Health Economics Research Centre at the University of Oxford for clarifications on the response mapping approach. An earlier version of this work was presented at the winter 2011 conference of the Health Economists’ Study Group at the University of York, and we are grateful for the comments received there.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pinedo-Villanueva, R.A., Turner, D., Judge, A. et al. Mapping the Oxford hip score onto the EQ-5D utility index. Qual Life Res 22, 665–675 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0174-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0174-y