IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i17p10827-d902218.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sequential Multiple Imputation for Real-World Health-Related Quality of Life Missing Data after Bariatric Surgery

Author

Listed:
  • Sun Sun

    (Department of Epidemiology and Global Health, Umeå University, 901 87 Umeå, Sweden
    Research Group Health Outcomes and Economic Evaluation, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Nan Luo

    (Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117549, Singapore)

  • Erik Stenberg

    (Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, 701 85 Örebro, Sweden)

  • Lars Lindholm

    (Department of Epidemiology and Global Health, Umeå University, 901 87 Umeå, Sweden)

  • Klas-Göran Sahlén

    (Department of Epidemiology and Global Health, Umeå University, 901 87 Umeå, Sweden)

  • Karl A. Franklin

    (Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Surgery, Umeå University, 901 87 Umeå, Sweden)

  • Yang Cao

    (Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medical Sciences, Örebro University, 701 82 Örebro, Sweden)

Abstract

One of the main challenges for the successful implementation of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessments is missing data. The current study examined the feasibility and validity of a sequential multiple imputation (MI) method to deal with missing values in the longitudinal HRQoL data from the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry. All patients in the SOReg who received bariatric surgery between 1 January 2011 and 31 March 2019 ( n = 47,653) were included for the descriptive analysis and missingness pattern exploration. The patients who had completed the short-form 36 (SF-36) at baseline (year 0), and one-, two-, and five-year follow-ups were included ( n = 3957) for the missingness pattern simulation and the sequential MI analysis. Eleven items of the SF-36 were selected to create the six domains of SF-6D, and the SF-6D utility index of each patient was calculated accordingly. The multiply-imputed variables in previous year were used as input to impute the missing values in later years. The performance of the sequential MI was evaluated by comparing the actual values with the imputed values of the selected SF-36 items and index at all four time points. At the baseline and year 1, where missing proportions were about 20% and 40%, respectively, there were no statistically significant discrepancies between the distributions of the actual and imputed responses (all p -values > 0.05). In year 2, where the missing proportion was about 60%, distributions of the actual and imputed responses were consistent in 9 of the 11 SF-36 items. However, in year 5, where the missing proportion was about 80%, no consistency was found between the actual and imputed responses in any of the SF-36 items. Relatively high missing proportions in HRQoL data are common in clinical registries, which brings a challenge to analyzing the HRQoL of longitudinal cohorts. The experimental sequential multiple imputation method adopted in the current study might be an ideal strategy for handling missing data (even though the follow-up survey had a missing proportion of 60%), avoiding significant information waste in the multivariate analysis. However, the imputations for data with higher missing proportions warrant more research.

Suggested Citation

  • Sun Sun & Nan Luo & Erik Stenberg & Lars Lindholm & Klas-Göran Sahlén & Karl A. Franklin & Yang Cao, 2022. "Sequential Multiple Imputation for Real-World Health-Related Quality of Life Missing Data after Bariatric Surgery," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-16, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:17:p:10827-:d:902218
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/17/10827/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/17/10827/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
    2. Ting Lin, 2006. "Missing Data Imputation in Quality-of-Life Assessment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 917-925, September.
    3. Makridakis, Spyros, 1993. "Accuracy measures: theoretical and practical concerns," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 527-529, December.
    4. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    5. Rita Faria & Manuel Gomes & David Epstein & Ian White, 2014. "A Guide to Handling Missing Data in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Conducted Within Randomised Controlled Trials," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(12), pages 1157-1170, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Makai, Peter & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Koopmanschap, Marc A. & Stolk, Elly A. & Nieboer, Anna P., 2014. "Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 83-93.
    2. Ian M. McCarthy, 2015. "Putting the Patient in Patient Reported Outcomes: A Robust Methodology for Health Outcomes Assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(12), pages 1588-1603, December.
    3. Roisin Adams & Cathal Walsh & Douglas Veale & Barry Bresnihan & Oliver FitzGerald & Michael Barry, 2010. "Understanding the Relationship between the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HAQ and Disease Activity in Inflammatory Arthritis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(6), pages 477-487, June.
    4. Rowen, D & Brazier, J & Tsuchiya, A & Hernández, M & Ibbotson, R, 2009. "The simultaneous valuation of states from multiple instruments using ranking and VAS data: methods and preliminary results," MPRA Paper 29841, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Lisa R. Ulrich & Juliana J. Petersen & Karola Mergenthal & Andrea Berghold & Gudrun Pregartner & Rolf Holle & Andrea Siebenhofer, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of case management for optimized antithrombotic treatment in German general practices compared to usual care – results from the PICANT trial," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    6. Ifigeneia Mavranezouli, 2010. "A Review and Critique of Studies Reporting Utility Values for Schizophrenia-Related Health States," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(12), pages 1109-1121, December.
    7. David Feeny, 2012. "The Multi-attribute Utility Approach to Assessing Health-related Quality of Life," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 36, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Samer A. Kharroubi & Yara Beyh, 2021. "Bayesian modeling of health state preferences: could borrowing strength from existing countries’ valuations produce better estimates," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 773-788, July.
    9. Ângela Jornada Ben & Johanna M. Dongen & Mohamed El Alili & Martijn W. Heymans & Jos W. R. Twisk & Janet L. MacNeil-Vroomen & Maartje Wit & Susan E. M. Dijk & Teddy Oosterhuis & Judith E. Bosmans, 2023. "The handling of missing data in trial-based economic evaluations: should data be multiply imputed prior to longitudinal linear mixed-model analyses?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(6), pages 951-965, August.
    10. Michela Tinelli & Mandy Ryan & Christine Bond & Anthony Scott, 2013. "Valuing Benefits to Inform a Clinical Trial in Pharmacy," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 163-171, February.
    11. L. M. Lamers & J. McDonnell & P. F. M. Stalmeier & P. F. M. Krabbe & J. J. V. Busschbach, 2006. "The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ‐5D valuation studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(10), pages 1121-1132, October.
    12. McCarthy, Ian M., 2016. "Eliminating composite bias in treatment effects estimates: Applications to quality of life assessment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 47-58.
    13. Colin Green & David A Richards & Jacqueline J Hill & Linda Gask & Karina Lovell & Carolyn Chew-Graham & Peter Bower & John Cape & Stephen Pilling & Ricardo Araya & David Kessler & J Martin Bland & Sim, 2014. "Cost-Effectiveness of Collaborative Care for Depression in UK Primary Care: Economic Evaluation of a Randomised Controlled Trial (CADET)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-12, August.
    14. Jacinto Nogueira & Eva Rodríguez-Míguez, 2015. "Using the SF-6D to measure the impact of alcohol dependence on health-related quality of life," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(4), pages 347-356, May.
    15. Pickles, Kristen & Lancsar, Emily & Seymour, Janelle & Parkin, David & Donaldson, Cam & Carter, Stacy M., 2019. "Accounts from developers of generic health state utility instruments explain why they produce different QALYs: A qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    16. Nadja Chernyak & Heribert Sattel & Marsel Scheer & Christina Baechle & Johannes Kruse & Peter Henningsen & Andrea Icks, 2014. "Economic Evaluation of Brief Psychodynamic Interpersonal Therapy in Patients with Multisomatoform Disorder," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-4, January.
    17. Garry R. Barton & Tracey H. Sach & Anthony J. Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Michael Doherty & David K. Whynes & Kenneth R. Muir, 2008. "A comparison of the performance of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D for individuals aged ≥ 45 years," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 815-832, July.
    18. John Brazier & Donna Rowen & Yaling Yang & Aki Tsuchiya, 2012. "Comparison of health state utility values derived using time trade-off, rank and discrete choice data anchored on the full health-dead scale," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 575-587, October.
    19. Renske Hoefman & Job Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2013. "How to Include Informal Care in Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(12), pages 1105-1119, December.
    20. P. Wang & M. Li & G. Liu & J. Thumboo & N. Luo, 2015. "Do Chinese have similar health-state preferences? A comparison of mainland Chinese and Singaporean Chinese," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(8), pages 857-863, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:17:p:10827-:d:902218. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.