IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v7y2023i5d10.1007_s41669-023-00425-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) onto SF-6D Using Swedish General Population Data

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Philipson

    (Örebro University)

  • Lars Hagberg

    (Örebro University)

  • Liselotte Hermansson

    (Örebro University)

  • Jan Karlsson

    (Örebro University)

  • Emma Ohlsson-Nevo

    (Örebro University)

  • Linda Ryen

    (Örebro University)

Abstract

Background and Objective Mapping algorithms can be used for estimating quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) when studies apply non-preference-based instruments. In this study, we estimate a regression-based algorithm for mapping between the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) and the preference-based instrument SF-6D to obtain preference estimates usable in health economic evaluations. This was done separately for the working and non-working populations, as WHODAS 2.0 discriminates between these groups when estimating scores. Methods Using a dataset including 2258 participants from the general Swedish population, we estimated the statistical relationship between SF-6D and WHODAS 2.0. We applied three regression methods, i.e., ordinary least squares (OLS), generalized linear models (GLM), and Tobit, in mapping onto SF-6D from WHODAS 2.0 at the overall-score and domain levels. Root mean squared error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE) were used for validation of the models; R2 was used to assess model fit. Results The best-performing models for both the working and non-working populations were GLM models with RMSE ranging from 0.084 to 0.088, MAE ranging from 0.068 to 0.071, and R2 ranging from 0.503 to 0.608. When mapping from the WHODAS 2.0 overall score, the preferred model also included sex for both the working and non-working populations. When mapping from the WHODAS 2.0 domain level, the preferred model for the working population included the domains mobility, household activities, work/study activities, and sex. For the non-working population, the domain-level model included the domains mobility, household activities, participation, and education. Conclusions It is possible to apply the derived mapping algorithms for health economic evaluations in studies using WHODAS 2.0. As conceptual overlap is incomplete, we recommend using the domain-based algorithms over the overall score. Different algorithms must be applied depending on whether the population is working or non-working, due to the characteristics of WHODAS 2.0.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Philipson & Lars Hagberg & Liselotte Hermansson & Jan Karlsson & Emma Ohlsson-Nevo & Linda Ryen, 2023. "Mapping the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) onto SF-6D Using Swedish General Population Data," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 7(5), pages 765-776, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:7:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s41669-023-00425-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-023-00425-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-023-00425-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-023-00425-y?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. Albrecht, Gary L. & Devlieger, Patrick J., 1999. "The disability paradox: high quality of life against all odds," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 977-988, April.
    3. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884.
    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. Thébaut, Clémence, 2013. "Dealing with moral dilemma raised by adaptive preferences in health technology assessment: The example of growth hormones and bilateral cochlear implants," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 102-109.
    2. Thomas Butt & Adnan Tufail & Gary Rubin, 2017. "Health State Utility Values for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Review and Advice," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 23-32, February.
    3. Tuomas Korhonen & Virpi Sillanpää & Aki Jääskeläinen, 2023. "Anchor practices that guide horizontal performance measurement: an interventionist case study of the financial aspect of new technology implementation in healthcare," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 27(3), pages 787-816, September.
    4. Ian Ross & Giulia Greco & Charles Opondo & Zaida Adriano & Rassul Nala & Joe Brown & Robert Dreibelbis & Oliver Cumming, 2022. "Measuring and valuing broader impacts in public health: Development of a sanitation‐related quality of life instrument in Maputo, Mozambique," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 466-480, March.
    5. Roberta Ara & Tessa Peasgood & Clara Mukuria & Helene Chevrou-Severac & Donna Rowen & Ismail Azzabi-Zouraq & Suzy Paisley & Tracey Young & Ben Hout & John Brazier, 2017. "Sourcing and Using Appropriate Health State Utility Values in Economic Models in Health Care," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 7-9, December.
    6. Joseph Kwon & Sung Wook Kim & Wendy J. Ungar & Kate Tsiplova & Jason Madan & Stavros Petrou, 2018. "A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Childhood Health Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(3), pages 277-305, April.
    7. Sara Olofsson & Katarina Gralén & Christina Hoxer & Paul Okhuoya & Ulf Persson, 2022. "The impact on quality of life of diet restrictions and disease symptoms associated with phenylketonuria: a time trade-off and discrete choice experiment study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 993-1005, August.
    8. Spencer, Anne & Rivero-Arias, Oliver & Wong, Ruth & Tsuchiya, Aki & Bleichrodt, Han & Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor & Norman, Richard & Lloyd, Andrew & Clarke, Philip, 2022. "The QALY at 50: One story many voices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    9. Helen Dakin & Alastair Gray, 2018. "Decision Making for Healthcare Resource Allocation: Joint v. Separate Decisions on Interacting Interventions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(4), pages 476-486, May.
    10. Mimmi Åström & Ola Rolfson & Kristina Burström, 2022. "Exploring EQ-5D-Y-3L Experience-Based VAS Values Derived Among Adolescents," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 383-393, May.
    11. Versteegh, M.M. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2016. "Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 66-74.
    12. Irina Pokhilenko & Luca M. M. Janssen & Aggie T. G. Paulus & Ruben M. W. A. Drost & William Hollingworth & Joanna C. Thorn & Sian Noble & Judit Simon & Claudia Fischer & Susanne Mayer & Luis Salvador-, 2023. "Development of an Instrument for the Assessment of Health-Related Multi-sectoral Resource Use in Europe: The PECUNIA RUM," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 155-166, March.
    13. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    14. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    15. Joanna M Charles & Deirdre M Harrington & Melanie J Davies & Charlotte L Edwardson & Trish Gorely & Danielle H Bodicoat & Kamlesh Khunti & Lauren B Sherar & Thomas Yates & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, 2019. "Micro-costing and a cost-consequence analysis of the ‘Girls Active’ programme: A cluster randomised controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, August.
    16. Andrew J. Mirelman & Miqdad Asaria & Bryony Dawkins & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Peter Berman, 2020. "Fairer Decisions, Better Health for All: Health Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Paul Revill & Marc Suhrcke & Rodrigo Moreno-Serra & Mark Sculpher (ed.), Global Health Economics Shaping Health Policy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, chapter 4, pages 99-132, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. 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.
    18. Christopher M Doran & Irina Kinchin, 2020. "Economic and epidemiological impact of youth suicide in countries with the highest human development index," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-11, May.
    19. Boniface Oyugi & Olena Nizalova & Sally Kendall & Stephen Peckham, 2024. "Does a free maternity policy in Kenya work? Impact and cost–benefit consideration based on demographic health survey data," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(1), pages 77-89, February.
    20. Richard Norman & Brendan Mulhern & Emily Lancsar & Paula Lorgelly & Julie Ratcliffe & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2023. "The Use of a Discrete Choice Experiment Including Both Duration and Dead for the Development of an EQ-5D-5L Value Set for Australia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 427-438, April.

    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:spr:pharmo:v:7:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s41669-023-00425-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.