IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v37y2017i3p262-272.html

Underestimation of Variance of Predicted Health Utilities Derived from Multiattribute Utility Instruments

Author

Listed:
  • Kelvin K. W. Chan
  • Feng Xie
  • Andrew R. Willan
  • Eleanor M. Pullenayegum

Abstract

Background . Parameter uncertainty in value sets of multiattribute utility-based instruments (MAUIs) has received little attention previously. This false precision leads to underestimation of the uncertainty of the results of cost-effectiveness analyses. The aim of this study is to examine the use of multiple imputation as a method to account for this uncertainty of MAUI scoring algorithms. Method . We fitted a Bayesian model with random effects for respondents and health states to the data from the original US EQ-5D-3L valuation study, thereby estimating the uncertainty in the EQ-5D-3L scoring algorithm. We applied these results to EQ-5D-3L data from the Commonwealth Fund (CWF) Survey for Sick Adults ( n = 3958), comparing the standard error of the estimated mean utility in the CWF population using the predictive distribution from the Bayesian mixed-effect model (i.e., incorporating parameter uncertainty in the value set) with the standard error of the estimated mean utilities based on multiple imputation and the standard error using the conventional approach of using MAUI (i.e., ignoring uncertainty in the value set). Result . The mean utility in the CWF population based on the predictive distribution of the Bayesian model was 0.827 with a standard error (SE) of 0.011. When utilities were derived using the conventional approach, the estimated mean utility was 0.827 with an SE of 0.003, which is only 25% of the SE based on the full predictive distribution of the mixed-effect model. Using multiple imputation with 20 imputed sets, the mean utility was 0.828 with an SE of 0.011, which is similar to the SE based on the full predictive distribution. Conclusion . Ignoring uncertainty of the predicted health utilities derived from MAUIs could lead to substantial underestimation of the variance of mean utilities. Multiple imputation corrects for this underestimation so that the results of cost-effectiveness analyses using MAUIs can report the correct degree of uncertainty.

Suggested Citation

  • Kelvin K. W. Chan & Feng Xie & Andrew R. Willan & Eleanor M. Pullenayegum, 2017. "Underestimation of Variance of Predicted Health Utilities Derived from Multiattribute Utility Instruments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 262-272, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:3:p:262-272
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X16650181
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X16650181
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X16650181?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. Angela Robinson & Anne Spencer, 2006. "Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 393-402, April.
    2. Samer A. Kharroubi & Anthony O'Hagan & John E. Brazier, 2005. "Estimating utilities from individual health preference data: a nonparametric Bayesian method," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 54(5), pages 879-895, November.
    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. Teresa C. O. Tsui & Kelvin K. W. Chan & Feng Xie & Eleanor M. Pullenayegum, 2024. "Creating a Multiply Imputed Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L in Canada: State-Level Misspecification Terms Are Needed to Characterize Parameter Uncertainty Correctly," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(4), pages 405-414, May.

    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. Menglu Che & Feng Xie & Stephanie Thomas & Eleanor Pullenayegum, 2023. "Bayesian Models with Spatial Correlation Improve the Precision of EQ-5D-5L Value Sets," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(5), pages 587-594, July.
    3. R. Hoorn & A. Donders & M. Oppe & P. Stalmeier, 2014. "The Better than Dead Method: Feasibility and Interpretation of a Valuation Study," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(8), pages 789-799, August.
    4. Round, Jeff, 2012. "Is a QALY still a QALY at the end of life?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 521-527.
    5. Musal, R. Muzaffer & Soyer, Refik & McCabe, Christopher & Kharroubi, Samer A., 2012. "Estimating the population utility function: A parametric Bayesian approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 538-547.
    6. Kaspar Walter Meili & Anna Månsdotter & Linda Richter Sundberg & Jan Hjelte & Lars Lindholm, 2022. "An initiative to develop capability-adjusted life years in Sweden (CALY-SWE): Selecting capabilities with a Delphi panel and developing the questionnaire," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-21, February.
    7. Koonal Shah & Andrew Lloyd & Mark Oppe & Nancy Devlin, 2013. "One-to-one versus group setting for conducting computer-assisted TTO studies: findings from pilot studies in England and the Netherlands," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 65-73, July.
    8. Alexina J. Mason & Manuel Gomes & James Carpenter & Richard Grieve, 2021. "Flexible Bayesian longitudinal models for cost‐effectiveness analyses with informative missing data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(12), pages 3138-3158, December.
    9. Brownsyne Tucker Edmonds & Fatima McKenzie & Stephen M. Downs & Aaron E. Carroll, 2019. "Women’s Preferences for Maternal and Neonatal Morbidity and Mortality in Childbirth," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(7), pages 755-764, October.
    10. Nancy Devlin & Ken Buckingham & Koonal Shah & Aki Tsuchiya & Carl Tilling & Grahame Wilkinson & Ben van Hout, 2013. "A Comparison Of Alternative Variants Of The Lead And Lag Time Tto," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 517-532, May.
    11. Jen-Yu Amy Chang & Chien-Ning Hsu & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Nan Luo & Hsiang-Wen Lin & Fang-Ju Lin, 2024. "Beyond 10-year lead-times in EQ-5D-5L: leveraging alternative lead-times in willingness-to-accept questions to capture preferences for worse-than-dead states and their implication," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(6), pages 1041-1055, August.
    12. Nan Luo & Minghui Li & Elly Stolk & Nancy Devlin, 2013. "The effects of lead time and visual aids in TTO valuation: a study of the EQ-VT framework," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 15-24, July.
    13. Angela Robinson & Anne Spencer & Peter Moffatt, 2015. "A Framework for Estimating Health State Utility Values within a Discrete Choice Experiment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(3), pages 341-350, April.
    14. Versteegh, MM & Attema, AE & Oppe, M & Devlin, NJ & Stolk, EA, 2012. "Time to tweak the TTO. But how?," MPRA Paper 37989, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Nicolas A. Menzies & Joshua A. Salomon, 2011. "Non‐monotonicity in the episodic random utility model," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(12), pages 1523-1531, December.
    16. John Brazier & Roberta Ara & Donna Rowen & Helene Chevrou-Severac, 2017. "A Review of Generic Preference-Based Measures for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 21-31, December.
    17. Liv Augestad & Kim Rand-Hendriksen & Ivar Kristiansen & Knut Stavem, 2012. "Impact of Transformation of Negative Values and Regression Models on Differences Between the UK and US EQ-5D Time Trade-Off Value Sets," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(12), pages 1203-1214, December.
    18. Mark Oppe & Kim Rand-Hendriksen & Koonal Shah & Juan M. Ramos‐Goñi & Nan Luo, 2016. "EuroQol Protocols for Time Trade-Off Valuation of Health Outcomes," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(10), pages 993-1004, October.
    19. Kharroubi, Samer & Brazier, John E. & O'Hagan, Anthony, 2007. "Modelling covariates for the SF-6D standard gamble health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(6), pages 1242-1252, March.
    20. Jose Luis Pinto Prades & Eva Rodriguez Miguez, 2011. "The Lead Time Trade-Off: The Case Of Health States Better Than Death," Working Papers 11.10, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:3:p:262-272. 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.