IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Challenges in modelling censored health state preference data: Explorations with the EQ-5D and HUI2

Listed author(s):
  • Chantelle Browne


    (Academic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds)

  • Roberta Longo

    (Academic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds)

  • Richard Edlin

    (Academic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds)

  • Jennifer Roberts

    (Academic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds)

  • Christopher McCabe

    (Academic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds)

Background - There are now a variety of preference based health related quality of life measures available. These instruments describe health in different terms and also use different methods for measuring individual preferences for health. Whilst these instruments have been shown to have acceptable psychometric properties, they have also been shown to be affected by ceiling and/or floor effects. The presence of ceiling effects in the health descriptive system are of particular concern for health state preference modelling as it may impact upon the likelihood of observing censoring and/or compression. Where appropriate methodologies are available to deal with these problems, it is methodologically preferable to use them. In this paper we assess the impact of adopting Tobit models to deal with potential censoring in two datasets – the MVH EQ-5D data and the UK HUI2 health state preference data. In doing so, we will show the impact on estimated values and expected fit. Methods - For each dataset we estimate a generalised least squares model with random effects and a tobit random effects model. The specification of each utility function is equivalent to those in the original publications (Dolan 1997, McCabe et al 2005). For each model we report the estimated coefficients, the Mean Absolute Error (MAE), the Mean Square Error (MSE), the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), the proportion of states where the absolute prediction error was greater than 0.1 and the correlation between observed and predicted values. Results - Censoring problems were found in the MVH EQ-5D data but not in the UK HUI2 data set. As expected the impact of adjusting for censoring is very different between the two datasets. Conclusion – The impact of taking account of potential censoring is much greater in the EQ-5D data than the HUI2 data. Although the EQ-5D 5 Level (EQ-5D 5L) will reduce the ceiling effect in the EQ-5D 3 Level (EQ-5D 3L), this will not provide a solution to the issue of censoring without a full re-estimation of utilities for all the health states it measures.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
File Function: First version, 2011
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds in its series Working Papers with number 1103.

in new window

Length: 19 pages
Date of creation: 2011
Handle: RePEc:lee:wpaper:1103
Contact details of provider: Phone: Worsley Building, Level 11, Clarendon Way, LEEDS LS2 9NL
Fax: +44 (0) 113 343 3470
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. G Torrance & Y Zhang & D Feeny & W Furlong & R Barr, 1992. "Multi-attribute Utility Functions for a Comprehensive Health Status Classification System: Health Utilities Index Mark 2," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 1992-18, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lee:wpaper:1103. 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: (Judy Wright)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.