IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v35y2015i7p902-911.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping from the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire PDQ-39 to the Generic EuroQol EQ-5D-3L

Author

Listed:
  • Seamus Kent
  • Alastair Gray
  • Iryna Schlackow
  • Crispin Jenkinson
  • Emma McIntosh

Abstract

Objective. To compare a range of statistical models to enable the estimation of EQ-5D-3L utilities from responses to the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire 39 (PDQ-39). Methods. Linear regression, beta regression, mixtures of linear regressions and beta regressions, and multinomial logistic regression were compared in terms of their ability to accurately predict EQ-5D-3L utilities from responses to the PDQ-39 using mean error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), and mean square error (MSE), overall and by Hoehn and Yahr stage. Models were estimated using data from the PD MED trial ( n = 9123) and assessed on both the estimation data as well as external data from the PD SURG trial ( n = 917). Results. Overall, the differences in the metrics of fit between models were small in both data sets, with performance poorer for all models in PD SURG. The performance across Hoehn and Yahr stages 1 to 3 were also similar, but multinomial logistic regression was found to exhibit less bias and better individual-level predictive accuracy in PD MED for those in Hoehn and Yahr stages 4 or 5. Overall, the multinomial logistic regression reported an ME of 0.038 out of sample and MAEs of 0.128 and 0.164 and MSEs of 0.030 and 0.044 in the estimation and external data sets, respectively. Poorer levels of the mobility domain score of the PDQ-39 were associated with increased odds of reporting problems for all EQ-5D domains except anxiety/depression. Conclusions. Finite mixture models with only few components can approximate the distribution of EQ-5D-3L utilities well but did not demonstrate improvements in predictive accuracy compared with multinomial logistic regression in the present data set.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:35:y:2015:i:7:p:902-911
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15584921
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X15584921
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X15584921?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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    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. 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.
    8. 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.

    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:35:y:2015:i:7:p:902-911. 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.