IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v40y2020i2p183-197.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the Benefits of Transformations in Health Utility Mapping

Author

Listed:
  • Nicholas Mitsakakis

    (Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
    Biostatistics Research Unit, Toronto General Hospital)

  • Karen E. Bremner

    (Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
    Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative)

  • George Tomlinson

    (Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
    Biostatistics Research Unit, Toronto General Hospital)

  • Murray Krahn

    (Toronto General Hospital Research Institute and Toronto Health Economics Technology Assessment Collaborative, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
    Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada)

Abstract

Background . Quality-of-life research and cost-effectiveness analyses frequently require data on health utility, a global measure of health-related quality of life. When utilities are unavailable, researchers have “mapped†descriptive instruments to utility instruments, using samples of responses to both instruments. Health utilities have an idiosyncratic distribution, with upper bound and probability mass at 1, left skewness, and kurtosis. Estimation of mean utility values conditional on covariates is of interest, particularly in health utility mapping applications. Traditional linear regression may be unsuitable because fundamental assumptions are violated. Complex statistical methods come with deficiencies that may outweigh their benefits. Aim . To investigate the benefits of transforming the health utility response variable before fitting a linear regression model. Methods . We compared log, logit, arcsin, and Box-Cox transformations with an untransformed model, using several measures of model accuracy. We made our evaluation by designing and conducting a simulation study and reanalyzing data from 2 published studies, which “mapped†a psychometric descriptive instrument to a utility instrument. Results . In the simulation study, log transformation with smearing estimator had in most cases the lowest bias but one of the highest variances, especially for estimating low utility values under small sample size. The untransformed model was outperformed by the transformed models. Findings were inconclusive for the analysis of real data, where arcsin gave the lowest error for one of the data sets, while the untransformed model had the best performance for the other. Conclusions . We identified the benefits of transformations and offered suggestions for future modeling of health utilities. However, the benefits were moderate and no single transformation appeared to be universally optimal, suggesting that selection requires examination on a case-by-case basis.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas Mitsakakis & Karen E. Bremner & George Tomlinson & Murray Krahn, 2020. "Exploring the Benefits of Transformations in Health Utility Mapping," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(2), pages 183-197, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:2:p:183-197
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19896567
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X19896567
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X19896567?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. Clara Mukuria & Donna Rowen & Sue Harnan & Andrew Rawdin & Ruth Wong & Roberta Ara & John Brazier, 2019. "An Updated Systematic Review of Studies Mapping (or Cross-Walking) Measures of Health-Related Quality of Life to Generic Preference-Based Measures to Generate Utility Values," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 295-313, June.
    2. Powell, James L., 1984. "Least absolute deviations estimation for the censored regression model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 303-325, July.
    3. Duncan Mortimer & Leonie Segal, 2008. "Comparing the Incomparable? A Systematic Review of Competing Techniques for Converting Descriptive Measures of Health Status into QALY-Weights," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(1), pages 66-89, January.
    4. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Asrul Akmal Shafie & Irwinder Kaur Chhabra & Jacqueline Hui Yi Wong & Noor Syahireen Mohammed, 2021. "Mapping PedsQL™ Generic Core Scales to EQ-5D-3L utility scores in transfusion-dependent thalassemia patients," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 735-747, July.

    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. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Gerry Richardson, 2020. "Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 665-681, July.
    2. Gang Chen & Munir A. Khan & Angelo Iezzi & Julie Ratcliffe & Jeff Richardson, 2016. "Mapping between 6 Multiattribute Utility Instruments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 160-175, February.
    3. 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.
    4. Irina Pokhilenko & Luca M. M. Janssen & Aggie T. G. Paulus & Ruben M. W. A. Drost & William Hollingworth & Joanna C. Thorn & Sian Noble & Judit Simon & Claudia Fischer & Susanne Mayer & Luis Salvador-, 2023. "Development of an Instrument for the Assessment of Health-Related Multi-sectoral Resource Use in Europe: The PECUNIA RUM," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 155-166, March.
    5. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    6. Héctor Manuel Zárate S., 2005. "Cambios en la estructura salarial: una historia desde la regresión cuanfílica," Monetaria, CEMLA, vol. 0(4), pages 339-364, octubre-d.
    7. Andrés Langebaek R. & Diego Vásquez E., 2007. "Determinantes de la actividad innovadora en la industria manufacturera colombiana," Borradores de Economia 433, Banco de la Republica de Colombia.
    8. Peracchi, Franco, 2002. "On estimating conditional quantiles and distribution functions," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 433-447, February.
    9. Andrew J. Mirelman & Miqdad Asaria & Bryony Dawkins & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Peter Berman, 2020. "Fairer Decisions, Better Health for All: Health Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Paul Revill & Marc Suhrcke & Rodrigo Moreno-Serra & Mark Sculpher (ed.), Global Health Economics Shaping Health Policy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, chapter 4, pages 99-132, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    10. Gerrans, Paul & Yap, Ghialy, 2014. "Retirement savings investment choices: Sophisticated or naive?," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 233-250.
    11. Christopher M Doran & Irina Kinchin, 2020. "Economic and epidemiological impact of youth suicide in countries with the highest human development index," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-11, May.
    12. Brunner, Eric & Sonstelie, Jon, 2003. "School finance reform and voluntary fiscal federalism," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(9-10), pages 2157-2185, September.
    13. Boniface Oyugi & Olena Nizalova & Sally Kendall & Stephen Peckham, 2024. "Does a free maternity policy in Kenya work? Impact and cost–benefit consideration based on demographic health survey data," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(1), pages 77-89, February.
    14. Seamus Kent & Alastair Gray & Iryna Schlackow & Crispin Jenkinson & Emma McIntosh, 2015. "Mapping from the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire PDQ-39 to the Generic EuroQol EQ-5D-3L," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(7), pages 902-911, October.
    15. Lili Wang & Lei Si & Fiona Cocker & Andrew J. Palmer & Kristy Sanderson, 2018. "A Systematic Review of Cost-of-Illness Studies of Multimorbidity," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 15-29, February.
    16. Etienne Nédellec & Judith Pineau & Patrice Prognon & Nicolas Martelli, 2018. "Level of Evidence in Economic Evaluations of Left Atrial Appendage Closure Devices: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 793-802, December.
    17. Eliana Christou & Michael G. Akritas, 2019. "Single index quantile regression for censored data," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 28(4), pages 655-678, December.
    18. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    19. Parente, Paulo M.D.C. & Smith, Richard J., 2011. "Gel Methods For Nonsmooth Moment Indicators," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 74-113, February.
    20. De Backer, Mickael & El Ghouch, Anouar & Van Keilegom, Ingrid, 2017. "An Adapted Loss Function for Censored Quantile Regression," LIDAM Discussion Papers ISBA 2017003, Université catholique de Louvain, Institute of Statistics, Biostatistics and Actuarial Sciences (ISBA).

    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:40:y:2020:i:2:p:183-197. 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.