IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v31y2011i3p481-493.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predicting EQ-5D Utility Scores from the Seattle Angina Questionnaire in Coronary Artery Disease

Author

Listed:
  • Harindra C. Wijeysundera
  • George Tomlinson
  • Colleen M. Norris
  • William A. Ghali
  • Dennis T. Ko
  • Murray D. Krahn

Abstract

Background: The Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ), a descriptive quality of life instrument, is often used in coronary artery disease studies. In its current form, however, it cannot be used in economic evaluations. The investigators sought to create a mapping algorithm that would allow translation of SAQ scores into EQ-5D utility scores. Methods: Data from the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH) database were used to examine the relationship between scores in each of the 5 domains of the SAQ (physical limitation, anginal stability, anginal frequency, treatment satisfaction, and disease perception) and the EQ-5D utility score. The cohort was divided into 80% derivation and 20% validation sets. Mapping algorithms were developed using simple linear regression and Tobit models. To account for the skewed distribution of the EQ-5D scores and the presence of heteroscedasticity, Bayesian extensions were applied to each model by specifying a nonconstant variance for the error term. Model performance was assessed by comparing predicted and observed mean EQ-5D scores in the validation set, and the unadjusted R2. Results: The cohort consisted of 1992 patients. The simple linear regression model had the best predictive performance, with an R2 of 0.38. The nonconstant variance term did not improve overall performance for any of the models. The linear regression model accurately estimated the mean EQ-5D score in the validation set (predicted score 0.81 v. observed score 0.81). Conclusions: Mean EQ-5D utility weights can be accurately estimated from the SAQ using a simple linear regression mapping algorithm.

Suggested Citation

  • Harindra C. Wijeysundera & George Tomlinson & Colleen M. Norris & William A. Ghali & Dennis T. Ko & Murray D. Krahn, 2011. "Predicting EQ-5D Utility Scores from the Seattle Angina Questionnaire in Coronary Artery Disease," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 481-493, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:3:p:481-493
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10386800
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X10386800
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X10386800?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. Duncan Mortimer & Leonie Segal, 2008. "Comparing the Incomparable? A Systematic Review of Competing Techniques for Converting Descriptive Measures of Health Status into QALY-Weights," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(1), pages 66-89, January.
    2. Peter C. Austin, 2002. "Bayesian Extensions of the Tobit Model for Analyzing Measures of Health Status," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(2), pages 152-162, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Seamus Kent & Alastair Gray & Iryna Schlackow & Crispin Jenkinson & Emma McIntosh, 2015. "Mapping from the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire PDQ-39 to the Generic EuroQol EQ-5D-3L," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(7), pages 902-911, October.
    2. Nicholas Mitsakakis & Karen E. Bremner & George Tomlinson & Murray Krahn, 2020. "Exploring the Benefits of Transformations in Health Utility Mapping," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(2), pages 183-197, February.
    3. Gang Chen & Munir A. Khan & Angelo Iezzi & Julie Ratcliffe & Jeff Richardson, 2016. "Mapping between 6 Multiattribute Utility Instruments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 160-175, February.
    4. Peter P. Wakker, 2008. "Lessons Learned by (from?) an Economist Working in Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(5), pages 690-698, September.
    5. Shengxiang Sang & Wei Liao & Ning Kang & Xueyan Wu & Ze Hu & Xiaotian Liu & Hongjian Zhang & Chongjian Wang, 2024. "Health-related quality of life assessed by EQ-5D-5L and its determinants among rural adults: result from the Henan rural cohort study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(1), pages 21-30, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Vlaev, Ivo, 2012. "How different are real and hypothetical decisions? Overestimation, contrast and assimilation in social interaction," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 963-972.
    8. 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.
    9. Kelvin K. W. Chan & Andrew R. Willan & Michael Gupta & Eleanor Pullenayegum, 2014. "Underestimation of Uncertainties in Health Utilities Derived from Mapping Algorithms Involving Health-Related Quality-of-Life Measures," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(7), pages 863-872, October.

    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:31:y:2011:i:3:p:481-493. 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.