IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/29841.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The simultaneous valuation of states from multiple instruments using ranking and VAS data: methods and preliminary results

Author

Listed:
  • Rowen, D
  • Brazier, J
  • Tsuchiya, A
  • Hernández, M
  • Ibbotson, R

Abstract

Background: Previous methods of empirical mapping involve using regressions on patient or general population self-report data from datasets involving two or more instruments. This approach relies on overlap in the descriptive systems of the measures, but key dimensions may not be present in both measures. Furthermore this assumes it is appropriate to use different instruments on the same population, which may not be the case for all patient groups. The aim of the study described here is to develop a new method of mapping using general population preferences for hypothetical health states defined by the descriptive systems of different measures. This paper presents a description of the methods used in the study and reports on the results of the valuation study including details about the respondents, feasibility and quality (e.g. response rate, completion and consistency) and descriptive results on VAS and ranking data. The use of these results to estimate mapping functions between instruments will be presented in a companion paper. Methods: The study used interviewer administered versions of ranking and VAS techniques to value 13 health states defined by each of 6 instruments: EQ-5D (generic), SF-6D (generic), HUI2 (generic for children), AQL-5D (asthma specific), OPUS (social care specific), ICECAP (capabilities). Each interview involved 3 ranking and visual analogue scale (VAS) tasks with states from 3 different instruments where each task involves the simultaneous valuation of multiple instruments. The study includes 13 health and well-being states for each instrument (16 for EQ-5D) that reflect a range of health state values according to the published health state values for each instrument and each health state is valued approximately 75-100 times. Results: The sample consists of 499 members of the UK general population with a reasonable spread of background characteristics (response rate=55%). The study achieved a completion rate of 99% for all states included in the rank and rating tasks and 94.8% of respondents have complete VAS responses and 97.2% have complete rank responses. Interviewers reported that it is doubtful for 4.1% of respondents that they understood the tasks, and 29.3% of respondents stated that they found the tasks difficult. The results suggest important differences in the range of mean VAS and mean rank values per state across instruments, for example mean VAS values for the worst state vary across instruments from 0.075 to 0.324. Respondents are able to change the ordering of states between the rank and VAS tasks and 12.0% of respondents have one or more differences in their rank and VAS orderings for every task. Conclusions: This study has demonstrated the feasibility of simultaneously valuing health states from different preference-based instruments. The preliminary analysis of the results presented here provides the basis for a new method of mapping between measures based on general population preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:29841
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/29841/1/MPRA_paper_29841.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Tsuchiya, A & Brazier, J & McColl, E & Parkin, D, 2002. "Deriving preference-based single indices from non-preference based condition-specific instruments: converting AQLQ into EQ5D indices," MPRA Paper 29740, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. McCabe, Christopher & Brazier, John & Gilks, Peter & Tsuchiya, Aki & Roberts, Jennifer & O'Hagan, Anthony & Stevens, Katherine, 2006. "Using rank data to estimate health state utility models," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 418-431, May.
    5. 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.
    6. Christopher McCabe & Katherine Stevens & Jennifer Roberts & John Brazier, 2005. "Health state values for the HUI 2 descriptive system: results from a UK survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 231-244, March.
    7. Young, Tracey A. & Yang, Y & Brazier, J & Tsuchiya, A, 2007. "The use of Rasch analysis as a tool in the construction of a preference based measure: the case of AQLQ," MPRA Paper 29802, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. John Brazier & Jennifer Roberts & Aki Tsuchiya & Jan Busschbach, 2004. "A comparison of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D across seven patient groups," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 873-884, September.
    9. Louise Longworth & Stirling Bryan, 2003. "An empirical comparison of EQ‐5D and SF‐6D in liver transplant patients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(12), pages 1061-1067, December.
    10. Bernie J. O'Brien & Marian Spath & Gordon Blackhouse & J.L. Severens & Paul Dorian & John Brazier, 2003. "A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF‐6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(11), pages 975-981, November.
    11. Ryan, Mandy & Netten, Ann & Skatun, Diane & Smith, Paul, 2006. "Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome--An application to social care for older people," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 927-944, September.
    12. Coast, Joanna & Flynn, Terry N. & Natarajan, Lucy & Sproston, Kerry & Lewis, Jane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J., 2008. "Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(5), pages 874-882, September.
    13. Tsuchiya, Aki & Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer, 2006. "Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 334-346, March.
    14. 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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mónica Hernández Alava & John Brazier & Donna Rowen & Aki Tsuchiya, 2013. "Common Scale Valuations across Different Preference-Based Measures," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(6), pages 839-852, August.

    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. Mónica Hernández Alava & John Brazier & Donna Rowen & Aki Tsuchiya, 2013. "Common Scale Valuations across Different Preference-Based Measures," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(6), pages 839-852, August.
    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. 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.
    4. Katherine Stevens, 2012. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D Index," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 729-747, August.
    5. 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.
    6. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Mónica Hernández Alava, 2012. "Valuing states from multiple measures on the same visual analogue sale: a feasibility study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 715-729, June.
    7. Christine McDonough & Anna Tosteson, 2007. "Measuring Preferences for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 93-106, February.
    8. Stevens, K, 2010. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility Index 9D (CHU9D)," MPRA Paper 29938, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Bruno Casal & Eva Rodríguez-Míguez & Berta Rivera, 0. "Measuring intangible cost-of-morbidity due to substance dependence: implications of using alternative preference-based instruments," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 0, pages 1-10.
    10. David Feeny, 2012. "The Multi-attribute Utility Approach to Assessing Health-related Quality of Life," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 36, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Bruno Casal & Eva Rodríguez-Míguez & Berta Rivera, 2020. "Measuring intangible cost-of-morbidity due to substance dependence: implications of using alternative preference-based instruments," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 1039-1048, September.
    12. Jacinto Nogueira & Eva Rodríguez-Míguez, 2015. "Using the SF-6D to measure the impact of alcohol dependence on health-related quality of life," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(4), pages 347-356, May.
    13. Richard Grieve & Marina Grishchenko & John Cairns, 2009. "SF-6D versus EQ-5D: reasons for differences in utility scores and impact on reported cost-utility," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(1), pages 15-23, February.
    14. 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.
    15. Janelle Seymour & Paul McNamee & Anthony Scott & Michela Tinelli, 2010. "Shedding new light onto the ceiling and floor? A quantile regression approach to compare EQ‐5D and SF‐6D responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(6), pages 683-696, June.
    16. 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.
    17. Bansback, Nick & Brazier, John & Tsuchiya, Aki & Anis, Aslam, 2010. "Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate societal health state utility values," MPRA Paper 29933, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Carmen Selva-Sevilla & Paula Ferrara & Manuel Gerónimo-Pardo, 2020. "Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D, and comparison of their psychometric properties in a spinal postoperative Spanish population," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(4), pages 649-662, June.
    19. Brazier, J & Rowen, D & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2009. "Using rank and discrete choice data to estimate health state utility values on the QALY scale," MPRA Paper 29891, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Cecilia Quercioli & Gabriele Messina & Emanuela Barbini & Giovanni Carriero & Mara Fanì & Nicola Nante, 2009. "Importance of sociodemographic and morbidity aspects in measuring health-related quality of life: performances of three tools," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(4), pages 389-397, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    preference-based measures of health; quality of life; mapping; visual analogue scale; ranking;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being
    • I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other

    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:pra:mprapa:29841. 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: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.