IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v19y2010i1p101-110.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Statistical implications of utility weighted and equally weighted HRQL measures: an empirical study

Author

Listed:
  • Caitlyn T. Wilke
  • A. Simon Pickard
  • Surrey M. Walton
  • Joern Moock
  • Thomas Kohlmann
  • Todd A. Lee

Abstract

The utility‐based approach to health measurement, exemplified by EQ‐5D and Health Utilities Index (HUI), has been challenged on a theoretical basis, but the statistical implications of such an approach have received little attention. To empirically investigate this issue, psychometric properties and statistical efficiency of the EQ‐5D and HUI Mark 3 (HUI3) classifiers were compared when scored using preference weighted (WPS) and equally weighted summary scores using two longitudinal datasets (nstroke=124; nrehabilitation=264). Test–retest reliability, construct validity, responsiveness, and relative efficiency (RE) ratios (with bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals) were examined. WPS had slightly lower test–retest reliability, particularly for EQ‐5D (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.61 vs 0.72). For known‐groups comparisons, WPS had greater inferential power for both EQ‐5D and HUI3 (RE>1). No significant differences in sensitivity to change were observed for EQ‐5D [0.71 (95% CI: 0.29,1.33)≤RE≤0.96(95% CI: 0.69,1.32)] or HUI3 [0.97 (95% CI: 0.89,1.03)≤RE≤1.23 (95% CI: 0.98,1.72)]. Implications of weighted scoring will depend on whether the weights are greater or less than equal weights where patients fall along the health state classifier continuum. Because utility weights can affect the statistical properties and significance of results, the summary score selected should be appropriate to the purpose of the study and population of interest. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:19:y:2010:i:1:p:101-110
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.1467
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1467
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.1467?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. Brooks, Richard AU -, 1996. "EuroQol: the current state of play," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 53-72, July.
    2. George W. Torrance & Michael H. Boyle & Sargent P. Horwood, 1982. "Application of Multi-Attribute Utility Theory to Measure Social Preferences for Health States," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1043-1069, December.
    3. Jenkinson, Crispin, 1991. "Why are we weighting? A critical examination of the use of item weights in a health status measure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 32(12), pages 1413-1416, January.
    4. David Parkin & Nigel Rice & Nancy Devlin, 2010. "Statistical Analysis of EQ-5D Profiles: Does the Use of Value Sets Bias Inference?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5), pages 556-565, 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. David Parkin & Nancy Devlin & Yan Feng, 2016. "What Determines the Shape of an EQ-5D Index Distribution?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(8), pages 941-951, 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. 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.
    2. Nick Bansback & Huiying Sun & Daphne P. Guh & Xin Li & Bohdan Nosyk & Susan Griffin & Paul G. Barnett & Aslam H. Anis, 2008. "Impact of the recall period on measuring health utilities for acute events," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(12), pages 1413-1419, December.
    3. Busschbach, Jan J. V. & McDonnell, Joseph & Essink-Bot, Marie-Louise & van Hout, Ben A., 1999. "Estimating parametric relationships between health description and health valuation with an application to the EuroQol EQ-5D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 551-570, October.
    4. Michaël Schwarzinger & Jean‐Louis Lanoë & Erik Nord & Isabelle Durand‐Zaleski, 2004. "Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade‐off responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 171-181, February.
    5. Cathleen Mooney & Alvin I. Mushlin & Charles E. Phelps, 1990. "Targeting Assessments of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in suspected Multiple sclerosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 10(2), pages 77-94, June.
    6. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Mandakovic, Tomislav & Gupta, Sushil K. & Sahay, Sundeep & Hong, Sungwan, 1995. "A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 59-79, March.
    7. Lee, Jonq-Ying & Rampersaud, Gail S. & Brown, Mark G., 2008. "An Index to Measure Health Status," Research papers 36819, Florida Department of Citrus.
    8. William B. Haskell & Wenjie Huang & Huifu Xu, 2018. "Preference Elicitation and Robust Optimization with Multi-Attribute Quasi-Concave Choice Functions," Papers 1805.06632, arXiv.org.
    9. George W. Torrance & David Feeny & William Furlong, 2001. "Visual Analog Scales," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(4), pages 329-334, August.
    10. Alan Shiell & Janelle Seymour & Penelope Hawe & Sue Cameron, 2000. "Are preferences over health states complete?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(1), pages 47-55, January.
    11. van der Pol, Marjon & Ruggeri, Matteo, 2008. "Is risk attitude outcome specific within the health domain?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 706-717, May.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. D. Stratmann‐Schoene & T. Kuehn & R. Kreienberg & R. Leidl, 2006. "A preference‐based index for the SF‐12," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 553-564, June.
    15. A. David Paltiel & Kenneth A. Freedberg, 1998. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing Cytomegalovirus Disease in AIDS Patients," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 34-51, June.
    16. Dolan, Paul & Kavetsos, Georgios & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2013. "Sick but satisfied: The impact of life and health satisfaction on choice between health scenarios," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 708-714.
    17. Han Bleichrodt & Magnus Johannesson, 1997. "An Experimental Test of a Theoretical Foundation for Rating-scale Valuations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(2), pages 208-216, April.
    18. 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.
    19. Scott B. Cantor, 2004. "Clinical Applications in the Decision Analysis Literature," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(1), pages 23-25, March.
    20. Dolan, Paul & Stalmeier, Peep, 2003. "The validity of time trade-off values in calculating QALYs: constant proportional time trade-off versus the proportional heuristic," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 445-458, May.

    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:19:y:2010:i:1:p:101-110. 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.