IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v40y2020i3p339-347.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Theoretical Relationship between Sample Size and Expected Predictive Precision for EQ-5D Valuation Studies: A Mathematical Exploration and Simulation Study

Author

Listed:
  • Kelvin K. W. Chan

    (Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
    Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control
    Institute of Health, Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
    Division of Biostatistics, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada)

  • Eleanor M. Pullenayegum

    (Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Hospital of Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
    Division of Biostatistics, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada)

Abstract

Background . Scoring algorithms of multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUI) are developed in valuation studies and are hence estimated subject to uncertainty. Valuation studies need to be designed to achieve reasonable accuracy. We aim to provide the first closed-form mathematical formula for the mean square error (MSE) of an additive MAUI as a function of sample size that acknowledges that the MAUI model for the mean utility is not a perfect fit. Methods . Based on the design of the EQ-5D valuation study, we derived our closed-form formula in terms of sample size and number of directly valued health states overall and per subject. We validated our formula by conducting a simulation study using the US EQ-5D-3L valuation data set and examined the effect of using a random-effects versus an ordinary least-squares model and the effect of heteroscedasticity. We explored the effect of sample size and number of valued health states. Results . The simulation study validated our MSE-based closed-form formula regardless of whether assuming a random-effects model versus an ordinary least squares model or heteroscedasticity versus homoscedasticity. As the sample size approaches infinity, the MSE does not approach zero but levels off asymptotically. The improvement based on increasing sample is more prominent when the sample is small. When the sample size is greater than 300 to 500, further increases do not meaningfully improve the MSE, while increasing the number of health states can further improve the MSE. Conclusion . We have derived a closed-form formula to calculate the MSE of an additive MAUI scoring algorithm based on sample size and number of health states, which will enable the developers of MAUI valuation studies to calculate the required sample size for their desired predictive precision.

Suggested Citation

  • Kelvin K. W. Chan & Eleanor M. Pullenayegum, 2020. "The Theoretical Relationship between Sample Size and Expected Predictive Precision for EQ-5D Valuation Studies: A Mathematical Exploration and Simulation Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(3), pages 339-347, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:3:p:339-347
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20915452
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X20915452
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X20915452?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. Aki Tsuchiya & Shunya Ikeda & Naoki Ikegami & Shuzo Nishimura & Ikuro Sakai & Takashi Fukuda & Chisato Hamashima & Akinori Hisashige & Makoto Tamura, 2002. "Estimating an EQ‐5D population value set: the case of Japan," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(4), pages 341-353, June.
    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 & Annushiah Vasan Thakumar, 2020. "Multiplicative modelling of EQ-5D-3L TTO and VAS values," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(9), pages 1411-1420, December.

    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. Feng Xie & A. Pickard & Paul Krabbe & Dennis Revicki & Rosalie Viney & Nancy Devlin & David Feeny, 2015. "A Checklist for Reporting Valuation Studies of Multi-Attribute Utility-Based Instruments (CREATE)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(8), pages 867-877, August.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Mathieu F. Janssen & Gouke J. Bonsel & Nan Luo, 2018. "Is EQ-5D-5L Better Than EQ-5D-3L? A Head-to-Head Comparison of Descriptive Systems and Value Sets from Seven Countries," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 675-697, June.
    6. Hidetoshi Shibahara & Takeru Shiroiwa & Megumi Ishiguro & Masato Nakamura & Junichi Hasegawa & Shigeki Yamaguchi & Yuriko Masuda & Junichi Sakamoto & Naohiro Tomita & Takashi Fukuda, 2022. "Cost-effectiveness of 12 months of capecitabine as adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer: preplanned cost-effectiveness analysis of the JFMC37-0801 study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(7), pages 1159-1171, September.
    7. Yasuhiro Hagiwara & Takeru Shiroiwa & Kojiro Shimozuma & Takuya Kawahara & Yukari Uemura & Takanori Watanabe & Naruto Taira & Takashi Fukuda & Yasuo Ohashi & Hirofumi Mukai, 2018. "Impact of Adverse Events on Health Utility and Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients Receiving First-Line Chemotherapy for Metastatic Breast Cancer: Results from the SELECT BC Study," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 215-223, February.
    8. 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.
    9. Julie Chevalier & Gérard Pouvourville, 2013. "Valuing EQ-5D using Time Trade-Off in France," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 57-66, February.
    10. Richard Norman & Paula Cronin & Rosalie Viney, 2012. "Deriving utility weights for the EQ-5D-5L using a discrete choice experiment. CHERE Working Paper 2012/01," Working Papers 2012/01, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    11. 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.
    12. Nan Luo & Pei Wang & Julian Thumboo & Yee-Wei Lim & Hubertus Vrijhoef, 2014. "Valuation of EQ-5D-3L Health States in Singapore: Modeling of Time Trade-Off Values for 80 Empirically Observed Health States," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 495-507, May.
    13. Kelvin K. W. Chan & Feng Xie & Andrew R. Willan & Eleanor M. Pullenayegum, 2018. "Conducting EQ-5D Valuation Studies in Resource-Constrained Countries: The Potential Use of Shrinkage Estimators to Reduce Sample Size," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 26-33, January.
    14. Imai, Hirohisa & Fujii, Yoshinori & Fukuda, Yoshiharu & Nakao, Hiroyuki & Yahata, Yuichiro, 2008. "Health-related quality of life and beneficiaries of long-term care insurance in Japan," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 349-355, March.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Bansback, Nick & Brazier, John & Tsuchiya, Aki & Anis, Aslam, 2012. "Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 306-318.
    18. Garry R. Barton & Tracey H. Sach & Anthony J. Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Michael Doherty & David K. Whynes & Kenneth R. Muir, 2008. "A comparison of the performance of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D for individuals aged ≥ 45 years," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 815-832, July.
    19. Leida M. Lamers & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Paul F. M. Krabbe & Jan J. V. Busschbach, 2006. "Inconsistencies in TTO and VAS Values for EQ-5D Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(2), pages 173-181, March.
    20. Mônica Viegas Andrade & Kenya Noronha & Paul Kind & Carla de Barros Reis & Lucas Resende de Carvalho, 2016. "Logical Inconsistencies in 3 Preference Elicitation Methods for EQ-5D Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 242-252, February.

    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:3:p:339-347. 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.