IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v24y2015i12p1588-1603.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Putting the Patient in Patient Reported Outcomes: A Robust Methodology for Health Outcomes Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Ian M. McCarthy

Abstract

When analyzing many health‐related quality‐of‐life (HRQoL) outcomes, statistical inference is often based on the summary score formed by combining the individual domains of the HRQoL profile into a single measure. Through a series of Monte Carlo simulations, this paper illustrates that reliance solely on the summary score may lead to biased estimates of incremental effects, and I propose a novel two‐stage approach that allows for unbiased estimation of incremental effects. The proposed methodology essentially reverses the order of the analysis, from one of ‘aggregate, then estimate’ to one of ‘estimate, then aggregate’. Compared to relying solely on the summary score, the approach also offers a more patient‐centered interpretation of results by estimating regression coefficients and incremental effects in each of the HRQoL domains, while still providing estimated effects in terms of the overall summary score. I provide an application to the estimation of incremental effects of demographic and clinical variables on HRQoL following surgical treatment for adult scoliosis and spinal deformity. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Ian M. McCarthy, 2015. "Putting the Patient in Patient Reported Outcomes: A Robust Methodology for Health Outcomes Assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(12), pages 1588-1603, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:24:y:2015:i:12:p:1588-1603
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.3113
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3113
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.3113?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. Brazier, John & Ratcliffe, Julie & Salomon, Joshua & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2016. "Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780198725923.
    2. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    3. 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.
    4. Edward C. Norton & Hua Wang & Chunrong Ai, 2004. "Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 4(2), pages 154-167, June.
    5. Barry I. Graubard & Edward L. Korn, 1999. "Predictive Margins with Survey Data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 55(2), pages 652-659, June.
    6. Mullahy, John, 2011. "Marginal Effects in Multivariate Probit and Kindred Discrete and Count Outcome Models," Working Papers 201135, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    7. Anirban Basu, 2005. "Extended generalized linear models: Simultaneous estimation of flexible link and variance functions," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 5(4), pages 501-516, December.
    8. Nancy J. Devlin & David Parkin & John Browne, 2010. "Patient‐reported outcome measures in the NHS: new methods for analysing and reporting EQ‐5D data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(8), pages 886-905, August.
    9. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    10. John Mullahy, 2011. "Marginal Effects in Multivariate Probit and Kindred Discrete and Count Outcome Models, with Applications in Health Economics," NBER Working Papers 17588, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Glick, Henry A & Doshi, Jalpa A & Sonnad, Seema S & Polsky, Daniel, 2007. "Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198529972.
    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. 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.

    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. 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. Makai, Peter & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Koopmanschap, Marc A. & Stolk, Elly A. & Nieboer, Anna P., 2014. "Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 83-93.
    3. Rowen, D & Brazier, J & Tsuchiya, A & Hernández, M & Ibbotson, R, 2009. "The simultaneous valuation of states from multiple instruments using ranking and VAS data: methods and preliminary results," MPRA Paper 29841, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Ifigeneia Mavranezouli, 2010. "A Review and Critique of Studies Reporting Utility Values for Schizophrenia-Related Health States," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(12), pages 1109-1121, December.
    5. Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Yan Feng & Brendan Mulhern & Ben van Hout, 2018. "Valuing health‐related quality of life: An EQ‐5D‐5L value set for England," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 7-22, January.
    6. Renske Hoefman & Job Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2013. "How to Include Informal Care in Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(12), pages 1105-1119, December.
    7. O'Hagan, A & Brazier, JE & Kharroubi, SA, 2007. "A comparison of United States and United Kingdom EQ-5D health states valuations using a nonparametric Bayesian method," MPRA Paper 29806, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Mulhern, B & Smith, SC & Rowen, D & Brazier, JE & Knapp, M & Lamping, DL & Loftus, V & Young, Tracey A. & Howard, RJ & Banerjee, S, 2010. "Improving the measurement of QALYs in dementia: developing patient- and carer-reported health state classification systems using Rasch analysis," MPRA Paper 29948, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Samer Kharroubi, 2015. "A Comparison of Japan and UK SF-6D Health-State Valuations Using a Non-Parametric Bayesian Method," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 409-420, August.
    10. Samer A. Kharroubi & Donna Rowen, 2019. "Valuation of preference-based measures: can existing preference data be used to select a smaller sample of health states?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 245-255, March.
    11. Elizabeth Goodwin & Colin Green, 2016. "A Systematic Review of the Literature on the Development of Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures of Health," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 161-183, April.
    12. Noémi Kreif & Richard Grieve & M. Zia Sadique, 2013. "Statistical Methods For Cost‐Effectiveness Analyses That Use Observational Data: A Critical Appraisal Tool And Review Of Current Practice," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 486-500, April.
    13. Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    14. Stevens, K, 2010. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility Index 9D (CHU9D)," MPRA Paper 29938, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Theresa Tawiah & Kristian Schultz Hansen & Frank Baiden & Jane Bruce & Mathilda Tivura & Rupert Delimini & Seeba Amengo-Etego & Daniel Chandramohan & Seth Owusu-Agyei & Jayne Webster, 2016. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Test-Based versus Presumptive Treatment of Uncomplicated Malaria in Children under Five Years in an Area of High Transmission in Central Ghana," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, October.
    16. Brazier, JE & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2008. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) from non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," MPRA Paper 29808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Billingsley Kaambwa & Gang Chen & Julie Ratcliffe & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell & Jeff Richardson, 2017. "Mapping Between the Sydney Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S) and Five Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments (MAUIs)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 111-124, January.
    18. Renske J. Hoefman & Job Exel & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2017. "Measuring Care-Related Quality of Life of Caregivers for Use in Economic Evaluations: CarerQol Tariffs for Australia, Germany, Sweden, UK, and US," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 469-478, April.
    19. Georgina Jones & Victoria Brennan & Richard Jacques & Hilary Wood & Simon Dixon & Stephen Radley, 2018. "Evaluating the impact of a ‘virtual clinic’ on patient experience, personal and provider costs of care in urinary incontinence: A randomised controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, January.
    20. Mohsen Sadatsafavi; & Carlo Marra; & Lawrence McCandless & Stirling Bryan, 2012. "The challenge of incorporating external evidence in trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses: the use of resampling methods," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 12/24, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.

    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:24:y:2015:i:12:p:1588-1603. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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 hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.