Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing and transforming PROMIS utility values to the EQ-5D

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Summarizing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) on a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) scale is an essential component to any economic evaluation comparing alternative medical treatments. While multiple studies have compared PRO items and instruments based on their psychometric properties, no study has compared the preference-based summary of the EQ-5D-3L and Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) instruments. As part of this comparison, a major aim of this manuscript is to transform PROMIS-29 utility values to an EQ-5D-3L scale.

Methods

A nationally representative survey of 2623 US adults completed the 29-item PROMIS health profile instrument (PROMIS-29) and the 3-level version of the EQ-5D instrument (EQ-5D-3L). Their responses were summarized on a health utility scale using published estimates. Using regression analysis, PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D-3L utility weights were compared with each other as well as with self-reported general health.

Results

PROMIS-29 utility weights were much lower than the EQ-5D-3L weights. However, a correlation coefficient of 0.769 between the utility values of the two instruments suggests that the main discordance is simply a difference in scale between the measures. It is also possible to map PROMIS-29 utility weights onto an EQ-5D-3L scale. EQ-5D-3L losses equal .1784 × (PROMIS-29 Losses).7286.

Conclusions

The published estimates of the PROMIS-29 produce lower utility values than many other health instruments. Mapping the PROMIS-29 estimates to an EQ-5D-3L scale alleviates this issue and allows for a more straightforward comparison between the PROMIS-29 and other common health instruments.

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
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bharmal, M., & Thomas, J. (2006). Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population. Value in Health, 9(4), 262–271.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (1998). Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Quality of Life Research, 7(2), 155–166.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fryback, D. G., et al. (2007). US norms for six generic health-related quality-of-life indexes from the national health measurement study. Medical Care, 45(12), 1162–1170.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Kopec, J. A., & Willison, K. D. (2003). A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(4), 317–325.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hanmer, J., et al. (2006). Report of nationally representative values for the noninstitutionalized US adult population for 7 health-related quality-of-life scores. Medical Decision Making, 26(4), 391–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lipscomb, J., et al. (2009). Retaining, and enhancing, the QALY. Value in Health, 12, S18-S26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Revicki, D. A., & Lenderking, W. R. (2012). Methods and issues associated with the use of quality-adjusted life-years. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 12(1), 105–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Marra, C. A., et al. (2007). Not all “quality-adjusted life years” are equal. Journal Of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(6), 616–624.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nord, E., Daniels, N., & Kamlet, M. (2009). QALYs: Some challenges. Value in Health, 12, S10–S15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Luo, N., et al. (2005). Self-reported health status of the general adult US population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Medical Care, 43(11), 1078–1086.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Franks, P., et al. (2004). Mapping the SF-12 to the EuroQol EQ-5D index in a national US sample. Medical Decision Making, 24(3), 247–254.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sullivan, P. W., & Ghushchyan, V. (2006). Mapping the EQ-5D index from the SF-12: US general population preferences in a nationally representative sample. Medical Decision Making, 26(4), 401–409.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Lawrence, W. F., & Fleishman, J. A. (2004). Predicting EuroQoL EQ-5D preference scores from the SF-12 health survey in a nationally representative sample. Medical Decision Making, 24(2), 160–169.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Revicki, D. A., et al. (2009). Predicting EuroQol (EQ-5D) scores from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global items and domain item banks in a United States sample. Quality of Life Research, 18(6), 783–791.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. EuroQol. (2015). About EQ-5D. Retrieved April 22, 2015, from http://www.euroqol.org/about-eq-5d.html.

  16. Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2001). EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 337–343.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cella, D., et al. (2010). The Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179–1194.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Hays, R. D., et al. (2016). Using Linear Equating to Map PROMIS (R) Global Health Items and the PROMIS-29 V2.0 Profile Measure to the Health Utilities Index Mark 3. Pharmacoeconomics, 34(10), 1015–1022.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Shaw, J. W., Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (2005). US valuation of the EQ-5D health states—development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Medical Care, 43(3), 203–220.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Craig, B. M., et al. (2014). US Valuation of health outcomes measured using the PROMIS-29. Value in Health, 17(8), 846–853.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Chai, T., & Draxler, R. R. (2014). Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)?—Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature. Geoscientific Model Development, 7(3), 1247–1250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. StataCorp, Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. 2013, StataCorp LP: College Station, TX.

  23. Craig, B. M., Pickard, A. S., & Lubetkin, E. I. (2014). Health problems are more common, but less severe when measured using newer EQ-5D versions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(1), 93–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Craig, B. M., & Busschbach, J. J. V. (2011). Revisiting United States valuation of EQ-5D states. Journal of Health Economics, 30(5), 1057–1063.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Fryback, D. G., et al. (2010). Comparison of 5 health-related quality-of-life indexes using item response theory analysis. Medical Decision Making, 30(1), 5–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wisloff, T., et al. 2014. Estimating QALY gains in applied studies: A review of cost-utility analyses published in 2010. Pharmacoeconomics, 32(4), 367–375.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. NICE, Positition Statement on the use of the EQ-5D-5L Valuation Set. 2017, National Institutes for Health and Care Excellence.

  28. Viney, R., et al. (2014). An Australian discrete choice experiment to value EQ-5D health states. Health Economics, 23(6), 729–742.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding support for this research was provided by an NCI R01 Grant (1R01CA160104).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Sciences and Administration, University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL, USA

    John D. Hartman

  2. Department of Economics, University of South Florida, Tampa, USA

    Benjamin M. Craig

Authors
  1. John D. Hartman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin M. Craig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John D. Hartman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Appendix

Appendix

See Fig. 5.

Fig. 5
figure 5

An attempt at transforming from EQ-5D-3L losses to PROMIS-29 losses. Drop lines represent interquartile ranges

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hartman, J.D., Craig, B.M. Comparing and transforming PROMIS utility values to the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res 27, 725–733 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1769-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1769-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation