IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v21y2012i6p715-729.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing states from multiple measures on the same visual analogue sale: a feasibility study

Author

Listed:
  • Donna Rowen
  • John Brazier
  • Aki Tsuchiya
  • Mónica Hernández Alava

Abstract

Previous methods of empirical mapping involve using regressions on patient or general population self‐reported data from datasets involving two or more measures. This approach relies on overlap in the descriptive systems of the measures and assumes it is appropriate to use different measures on the same population, which may not always be the case. This paper presents a feasibility study for a new approach to mapping between preference‐based measures (PBM) using general population visual analogue scale (VAS) values as a common yardstick. We use data from a valuation study of 502 members of the UK general population, where, using ranking and VAS tasks, interviewees simultaneously valued health states defined by three of six PBM: EQ‐5D (generic), SF‐6D (generic), HUI2 (generic for children and adults), AQL‐5D (asthma specific), OPUS (social care specific) and ICECAP (capabilities). Regression techniques are used to estimate the relationship between these VAS values and the original value set (i.e. ‘tariff’). These results are subsequently used to estimate the relationship between all six PBM to enable ‘value‐based mapping’ between measures. This new method of mapping potentially has a useful role in evidence synthesis and cross programme comparisons in studies using different measures. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Mónica Hernández Alava, 2012. "Valuing states from multiple measures on the same visual analogue sale: a feasibility study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 715-729, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:21:y:2012:i:6:p:715-729
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.1740
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1740
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.1740?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. 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," MPRA Paper 29740, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. John Brazier & Yaling Yang & Aki Tsuchiya & Donna Rowen, 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, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(2), pages 215-225, April.
    3. Katherine J. Stevens & Christopher J. McCabe & John E. Brazier, 2006. "Mapping between Visual Analogue Scale and Standard Gamble data; results from the UK Health Utilities Index 2 valuation survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 527-533, May.
    4. 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.
    5. Michael B. Nichol & Nishan Sengupta & Denise R. Globe, 2001. "Evaluating Quality-Adjusted Life Years," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(2), pages 105-112, April.
    6. Christopher McCabe & Katherine Stevens & Jennifer Roberts & John Brazier, 2005. "Health state values for the HUI 2 descriptive system: results from a UK survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 231-244, March.
    7. George W. Torrance & David Feeny & William Furlong, 2001. "Visual Analog Scales," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(4), pages 329-334, August.
    8. Jack Dowie, 2002. "Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition‐specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 1-8, January.
    9. Grewal, Ini & Lewis, Jane & Flynn, Terry & Brown, Jackie & Bond, John & Coast, Joanna, 2006. "Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: Preferences or capabilities?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(8), pages 1891-1901, April.
    10. Bernie J. O'Brien & Marian Spath & Gordon Blackhouse & J.L. Severens & Paul Dorian & John Brazier, 2003. "A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF‐6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(11), pages 975-981, November.
    11. Ryan, Mandy & Netten, Ann & Skatun, Diane & Smith, Paul, 2006. "Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome--An application to social care for older people," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 927-944, September.
    12. Tracey A. Young & Yaling Yang & John E. Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya, 2011. "The Use of Rasch Analysis in Reducing a Large Condition-Specific Instrument for Preference Valuation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 195-210, January.
    13. Coast, Joanna & Flynn, Terry N. & Natarajan, Lucy & Sproston, Kerry & Lewis, Jane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J., 2008. "Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(5), pages 874-882, September.
    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. John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya, 2015. "Improving Cross-Sector Comparisons: Going Beyond the Health-Related QALY," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(6), pages 557-565, December.
    2. Nishit Dhanji & Werner Brouwer & Cam Donaldson & Eve Wittenberg & Hareth Al‐Janabi, 2021. "Estimating an exchange‐rate between care‐related and health‐related quality of life outcomes for economic evaluation: An application of the wellbeing valuation method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(11), pages 2847-2857, November.
    3. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. John Brazier & Jennifer Roberts & Donna Rowen, 2012. "Methods for Developing Preference-based Measures of Health," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 37, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Brazier, JE & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2008. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) from non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," MPRA Paper 29808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Brazier, John & Rowen, Donna & Tsuchiya, Aki & Yang, Yaling & Young, Tracy A., 2011. "The impact of adding an extra dimension to a preference-based measure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 245-253, July.
    5. Mónica Hernández Alava & John Brazier & Donna Rowen & Aki Tsuchiya, 2013. "Common Scale Valuations across Different Preference-Based Measures," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(6), pages 839-852, August.
    6. 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.
    7. Terry N. Flynn & Elisabeth Huynh & Tim J. Peters & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Sam Clemens & Alison Moody & Joanna Coast, 2015. "Scoring the Icecap‐a Capability Instrument. Estimation of a UK General Population Tariff," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 258-269, March.
    8. Hareth Al‐Janabi, 2018. "Do capability and functioning differ? A study of U.K. survey responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 465-479, March.
    9. 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.
    10. Myles-Jay Linton & Paul Mark Mitchell & Hareth Al-Janabi & Michael Schlander & Jeff Richardson & Angelo Iezzi & Jasper Ubels & Joanna Coast, 2020. "Comparing the German Translation of the ICECAP-A Capability Wellbeing Measure to the Original English Version: Psychometric Properties across Healthy Samples and Seven Health Condition Groups," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 15(3), pages 651-673, July.
    11. Rodríguez-Míguez, E. & Abellán-Perpiñán, J.M. & Alvarez, X.C. & González, X.M. & Sampayo, A.R., 2016. "The DEP-6D, a new preference-based measure to assess health states of dependency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 210-219.
    12. Moustapha Touré & Christian R. C. Kouakou & Thomas G. Poder, 2021. "Dimensions Used in Instruments for QALY Calculation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-22, April.
    13. 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.
    14. Eva Rodríguez Míguez & José María Abellán Perpiñán & José Carlos Álvarez Villamarín & José Manuel González Martínez & Antonio Rodríguez Sampayo, 2013. "Development of a new preference-based instrument to measure dependency," Working Papers 1301, Universidade de Vigo, Departamento de Economía Aplicada.
    15. John Brazier & Yaling Yang & Aki Tsuchiya & Donna Rowen, 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, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(2), pages 215-225, April.
    16. Christine McDonough & Anna Tosteson, 2007. "Measuring Preferences for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 93-106, February.
    17. Brazier, J, 2005. "Current state of the art in preference-based measures of health and avenues for further research," MPRA Paper 29762, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Julie Ratcliffe & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Tara Symonds & Martin Brown, 2009. "Using DCE and ranking data to estimate cardinal values for health states for deriving a preference‐based single index from the sexual quality of life questionnaire," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(11), pages 1261-1276, November.
    19. Matthew Franklin & Katherine Payne & Rachel A. Elliott, 2018. "Quantifying the Relationship between Capability and Health in Older People: Can’t Map, Won’t Map," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 79-94, January.
    20. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:hlthec:v:21:y:2012:i:6:p:715-729. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.