IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cty/dpaper/08-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Statistical analysis of EQ-5D profiles: does the use of value sets bias inference?

Author

Listed:
  • Parkin, D.
  • Rice, N.
  • Devlin, N.

Abstract

Health state profile data, such as those provided by the EQ-5D, are widely collected in clinical trials, population surveys and a growing range of other important health sector applications. However, these profile data are difficult to summarise to give an overall view of the health of a given population that can be analysed for differences between groups or within groups over time. A common way of short-cutting this problem is to transform profiles into a single number, or index, using sets of weights, often elicited from the general public in the form of values. Are there any problems with this procedure? In this paper we demonstrate the underlying effects of the use of value sets as a means of weighting profile data. We show that any set of weights introduces an exogenous source of variance to health profile data. These can distort findings about the significance of changes in health between groups or over time. No set of weights is neutral its effect. If a summary of patient reported outcomes is required, it may be better to use an instrument that yields this directly – such as the EQ VAS – along with the descriptive instrument. If this is not possible, researchers should have a clear rationale for their choice of weights; and be aware that those weighs may exert a non-trivial effect on their analysis. This paper focuses on the EQ-5D, but the arguments and their implications for statistical analysis are relevant to all health state descriptive systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Parkin, D. & Rice, N. & Devlin, N., 2008. "Statistical analysis of EQ-5D profiles: does the use of value sets bias inference?," Working Papers 08/10, Department of Economics, City University London.
    • Handle: RePEc:cty:dpaper:08/10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/1503/1/0810_parkin-et-al.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Xavier Badia & Montserrat Roset & Michael Herdman & Paul Kind, 2001. "A Comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish General Population Time Trade-off Values for EQ-5D Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 7-16, February.
    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. Manuel B. Huber & Julia Felix & Martin Vogelmann & Reiner Leidl, 2017. "Health-Related Quality of Life of the General German Population in 2015: Results from the EQ-5D-5L," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-12, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Jeff Round & Annie Hawton, 2017. "Statistical Alchemy: Conceptual Validity and Mapping to Generate Health State Utility Values," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 233-239, December.
    4. Franz Ombler & Michael Albert & Paul Hansen, 2018. "How Significant Are “High†Correlations Between EQ-5D Value Sets?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 635-645, August.
    5. A. Enrique & J. Burke & D. Richards & L. Timulak, 2019. "Quality of Life Outcomes in Internet-Delivered (Space from Depression) Treatment for Depression," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 14(5), pages 1301-1313, November.
    6. Tianxin Pan & Brendan Mulhern & Rosalie Viney & Richard Norman & Janel Hanmer & Nancy Devlin, 2022. "A Comparison of PROPr and EQ-5D-5L Value Sets," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 297-307, March.
    7. Caitlyn T. Wilke & A. Simon Pickard & Surrey M. Walton & Joern Moock & Thomas Kohlmann & Todd A. Lee, 2010. "Statistical implications of utility weighted and equally weighted HRQL measures: an empirical study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 101-110, January.
    8. Raymond Oppong & Billingsley Kaambwa & Jacqueline Nuttall & Kerenza Hood & Richard Smith & Joanna Coast, 2013. "The impact of using different tariffs to value EQ-5D health state descriptions: an example from a study of acute cough/lower respiratory tract infections in seven countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(2), pages 197-209, April.
    9. Xiaojing Fan & Duolao Wang & Bruce Hellman & Mathieu F. Janssen & Gerben Bakker & Rupert Coghlan & Amelia Hursey & Helen Matthews & Ian Whetstone, 2018. "Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life between People with Parkinson’s Disease and Non-Parkinson’s: Using Data Drawn from the ‘100 for Parkinson’s’ Smartphone-Based Prospective Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-12, November.

    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. Samer A. Kharroubi & Yara Beyh & Marwa Diab El Harake & Dalia Dawoud & Donna Rowen & John Brazier, 2020. "Examining the Feasibility and Acceptability of Valuing the Arabic Version of SF-6D in a Lebanese Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-15, February.
    2. Richard Norman & Brendan Mulhern & Emily Lancsar & Paula Lorgelly & Julie Ratcliffe & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2023. "The Use of a Discrete Choice Experiment Including Both Duration and Dead for the Development of an EQ-5D-5L Value Set for Australia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 427-438, April.
    3. 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.
    4. Juan Ramos-Goñi & Oliver Rivero-Arias & María Errea & Elly Stolk & Michael Herdman & Juan Cabasés, 2013. "Dealing with the health state ‘dead’ when using discrete choice experiments to obtain values for EQ-5D-5L heath states," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 33-42, July.
    5. Mathieu F. Janssen & Ines Buchholz & Dominik Golicki & Gouke J. Bonsel, 2022. "Is EQ-5D-5L Better Than EQ-5D-3L Over Time? A Head-to-Head Comparison of Responsiveness of Descriptive Systems and Value Sets from Nine Countries," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(11), pages 1081-1093, November.
    6. Mathieu F. Janssen & A. Simon Pickard & James W. Shaw, 2021. "General population normative data for the EQ-5D-3L in the five largest European economies," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(9), pages 1467-1475, December.
    7. Munir A. Khan & Jeff Richardson, 2019. "Is the Validity of Cost Utility Analysis Improved When Utility is Measured by an Instrument with ‘Home-Country’ Weights? Evidence from Six Western Countries," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 1-15, August.
    8. Maureen Rutten-van Mölken & Jan Oostenbrink & Marc Miravitlles & Brigitta Monz, 2007. "Modelling the 5-year cost effectiveness of tiotropium, salmeterol and ipratropium for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Spain," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 8(2), pages 123-135, June.
    9. Adrian Bagust & Sophie Beale, 2005. "Modelling EuroQol health‐related utility values for diabetic complications from CODE‐2 data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 217-230, March.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Irina Cleemput, 2010. "A social preference valuations set for EQ-5D health states in Flanders, Belgium," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(2), pages 205-213, April.
    13. Arne Risa Hole & Richard Norman & Rosalie Viney, 2016. "Response Patterns in Health State Valuation Using Endogenous Attribute Attendance and Latent Class Analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 212-224, February.
    14. 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.
    15. Eleanor Pullenayegum & Kuhan Perampaladas & Kathryn Gaebel & Brett Doble & Feng Xie, 2015. "Between-country heterogeneity in EQ-5D-3L scoring algorithms: how much is due to differences in health state selection?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(8), pages 847-855, November.
    16. Lien Nguyen & Hanna Jokimäki & Ismo Linnosmaa & Eirini-Christina Saloniki & Laurie Batchelder & Juliette Malley & Hui Lu & Peter Burge & Birgit Trukeschitz & Julien Forder, 2022. "Valuing informal carers’ quality of life using best-worst scaling—Finnish preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for carers (ASCOT-Carer)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(3), pages 357-374, April.
    17. Peter P. Wakker, 2008. "Lessons Learned by (from?) an Economist Working in Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(5), pages 690-698, September.
    18. José María Abellán Perpiñán & Fernando Ignacio Sánchez Martínez & Jorge Eduardo Martínez Pérez & Ildefonso Méndez, 2012. "Lowering The ‘Floor’ Of The Sf‐6d Scoring Algorithm Using A Lottery Equivalent Method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(11), pages 1271-1285, November.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:cty:dpaper:08/10. 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: Research Publications Librarian (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/decituk.html .

    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.