IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssa/v178y2015i3p567-591.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prediction of patient-reported outcome measures via multivariate ordered probit models

Author

Listed:
  • Caterina Conigliani
  • Andrea Manca
  • Andrea Tancredi

Abstract

type="main" xml:id="rssa12072-abs-0001"> The assessment of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is of central importance in many areas of research and public policy. Unfortunately, it is quite common for clinical studies to employ different PROMs, thus limiting the comparability of the evidence base that they contribute to. This issue is exacerbated by the fact that some national agencies are now explicit about which PROMs must be used to generate evidence in support of claims for reimbursement. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for England and Wales, for instance, has identified in EuroQoL-5D, EQ-5D, the PROM of choice, while accepting the use of a ‘mapping’ approach to predict EQ-5D from other PROMs when EQ-5D data have not been collected. Here we consider the problem of directly predicting EQ-5D responses from ‘Short form 12', while recognizing both the likely dependence between the five dimensions of the EQ-5D responses at the patient level, and the fact that the levels of each health dimension are naturally ordered. We carry out the analysis within a Bayesian framework. We also address the key problem of choosing an appropriate summary measure of agreement between predicted and actual results when analysing PROMs, with particular attention devoted to scoring rules.

Suggested Citation

  • Caterina Conigliani & Andrea Manca & Andrea Tancredi, 2015. "Prediction of patient-reported outcome measures via multivariate ordered probit models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 178(3), pages 567-591, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:178:y:2015:i:3:p:567-591
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/rssa.2015.178.issue-3
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Hernández-Alava, Mónica & Pudney, Stephen, 2017. "Econometric modelling of multiple self-reports of health states: The switch from EQ-5D-3L to EQ-5D-5L in evaluating drug therapies for rheumatoid arthritis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 139-152.

    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:bla:jorssa:v:178:y:2015:i:3:p:567-591. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rssssea.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.