IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v31y2011i1p174-185.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predicting the EuroQol Group’s EQ-5D Index from CDC’s “Healthy Days†in a US Sample

Author

Listed:
  • Haomiao Jia
  • Matthew M. Zack
  • David G. Moriarty
  • Dennis G. Fryback

Abstract

Background . Obtaining reliable preference-based scores from the widely used Healthy Days measures would enable calculation of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost-utility analyses in many US community populations and over time. Previous studies translating the Healthy Days to the EQ-5D, a preference-based measure, relied on an indirect method because of a lack of population-based survey data that asked both sets of questions of the same respondents. Method . Data from the 2005–2006 National Health Measurement Study (NHMS; n = 3844 adults 35 years old or older) were used to develop regression-based models to estimate EQ-5D index scores from self-reported age, self-rated general health, and numbers of unhealthy days. Results . The models explained up to 52% of the variance in the EQ-5D. Estimated EQ-5D scores matched well to the observed EQ-5D scores in mean scores overall and by age, gender, race/ethnicity, income, education, body mass index, smoking, and disease categories. The average absolute differences were 0.005 to 0.006 on a health utility scale. After estimating mean EQ-5D index scores overall and for various subgroups in a large representative US sample of Healthy Days respondents, the authors found that these mean scores also closely matched the corresponding mean scores of EQ-5D respondents obtained from another large US representative sample with an average absolute difference of 0.013 points. Conclusions . This study yielded a mapping algorithm to estimate EQ-5D index scores from the Healthy Days measures for populations of adults 35 years old and older. Such analysis confirms it is feasible to estimate mean EQ-5D index scores with acceptable validity for use in calculating QALYs and cost-utility analyses based on the overall model fit and relatively small differences between the observed and the estimated mean scores.

Suggested Citation

  • Haomiao Jia & Matthew M. Zack & David G. Moriarty & Dennis G. Fryback, 2011. "Predicting the EuroQol Group’s EQ-5D Index from CDC’s “Healthy Days†in a US Sample," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 174-185, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:1:p:174-185
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10364845
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X10364845
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X10364845?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marianne P. Bitler & Jonah B. Gelbach & Hilary W. Hoynes, 2006. "What Mean Impacts Miss: Distributional Effects of Welfare Reform Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 988-1012, September.
    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. Burt S. Barnow & Jeffrey Smith, 2015. "Employment and Training Programs," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the United States, Volume 2, pages 127-234, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Caroline Danielson & Deborah Reed & Qian Li & Jay Liao, "undated". "Sanctions and Time Limits in California's Welfare Program," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 09550879b2754a38b32e03488, Mathematica Policy Research.
    3. Pedro H. C. Sant'Anna & Xiaojun Song & Qi Xu, 2022. "Covariate distribution balance via propensity scores," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(6), pages 1093-1120, September.
    4. Elizabeth O. Ananat & Guy Michaels, 2008. "The Effect of Marital Breakup on the Income Distribution of Women with Children," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 43(3), pages 611-629.
    5. Okeke, Edward N. & Adepiti, Clement A. & Ajenifuja, Kayode O., 2013. "What is the price of prevention? New evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 207-218.
    6. Steven F. Lehrer & R. Vincent Pohl & Kyungchul Song, 2016. "Targeting Policies: Multiple Testing and Distributional Treatment Effects," NBER Working Papers 22950, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Sloczynski, Tymon, 2020. "Interpreting OLS Estimands When Treatment Effects Are Heterogeneous: Smaller Groups Get Larger Weights," IZA Discussion Papers 13283, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Richard K. Crump & V. Joseph Hotz & Guido W. Imbens & Oscar A. Mitnik, 2008. "Nonparametric Tests for Treatment Effect Heterogeneity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 90(3), pages 389-405, August.
    9. Sakos, Grayson & Cerulli, Giovanni & Garbero, Alessandra, 2021. "Beyond the ATE: Idiosyncratic Effect Estimation to Uncover Distributional Impacts Results from 17 Impact Evaluations," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 314017, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Sungwon Lee & Joon H. Ro, 2020. "Nonparametric Tests for Conditional Quantile Independence with Duration Outcomes," Working Papers 2013, Nam Duck-Woo Economic Research Institute, Sogang University (Former Research Institute for Market Economy).
    11. Maier, Michael, 2011. "Tests for distributional treatment effects under unconfoundedness," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 49-51, January.
    12. Michael J. Kottelenberg & Steven F. Lehrer, 2017. "Targeted or Universal Coverage? Assessing Heterogeneity in the Effects of Universal Child Care," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 35(3), pages 609-653.
    13. Firpo, Sergio & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kobus, Martyna & Parker, Thomas & Rosa-Dias, Pedro, 2020. "Loss Aversion and the Welfare Ranking of Policy Interventions," IZA Discussion Papers 13176, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Sloczynski, Tymon, 2018. "A General Weighted Average Representation of the Ordinary and Two-Stage Least Squares Estimands," IZA Discussion Papers 11866, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. David Neumark & Brian Asquith & Brittany Bass, 2020. "Longer‐Run Effects Of Anti‐Poverty Policies On Disadvantaged Neighborhoods," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 38(3), pages 409-434, July.
    16. Havnes, Tarjei & Mogstad, Magne, 2015. "Is universal child care leveling the playing field?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 100-114.
    17. Abdullah Kumas & Daniel L. Millimet, 2018. "Reassessing the effects of bilateral tax treaties on US FDI activity," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 42(3), pages 451-470, July.
    18. Xavier D’Haultfoeuille & Pauline Givord, 2014. "La régression quantile en pratique," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 471(1), pages 85-111.
    19. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    20. Nicholas W Papageorge & Kevin Thom, 2020. "Genes, Education, and Labor Market Outcomes: Evidence from the Health and Retirement Study," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(3), pages 1351-1399.

    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:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:1:p:174-185. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.