IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v19y2010i6p683-696.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shedding new light onto the ceiling and floor? A quantile regression approach to compare EQ‐5D and SF‐6D responses

Author

Listed:
  • Janelle Seymour
  • Paul McNamee
  • Anthony Scott
  • Michela Tinelli

Abstract

An important issue in the measurement of health status concerns the extent to which an instrument displays lack of sensitivity to changes in health status at the extremes of the distribution, known as floor and ceiling effects. Previous studies use relatively simple methods that focus on the mean of the distribution to examine these effects. The aim of this paper is to determine whether quantile regression using longitudinal data improves our understanding of the relationship between quality of life instruments. The study uses EQ‐5D and SF‐36 (converted to SF‐6D values) instruments with both baseline and follow‐up data. Relative to ordinary least least‐squares (OLS), a first difference model shows much lower association between the measures, suggesting that OLS methods may lead to biased estimates of the association, due to unobservable patient characteristics. The novel finding, revealed by quantile regression, is that the strength of association between the instruments is different across different parts of the health distribution, and is dependent on whether health improves or deteriorates. The results suggest that choosing one instrument at the expense of another is difficult without good prior information surrounding the expected magnitude and direction of health improvement related to a health‐care intervention. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:19:y:2010:i:6:p:683-696
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.1505
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1505
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.1505?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. Eric W. Christensen, 2004. "Scale and scope economies in nursing homes: A quantile regression approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(4), pages 363-377, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Richard Holland & Richard D Smith & Ian Harvey & Louise Swift & Elizabeth Lenaghan, 2004. "Assessing quality of life in the elderly: a direct comparison of the EQ‐5D and AQoL," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(8), pages 793-805, August.
    4. Winkelmann, Rainer, 2006. "Reforming health care: Evidence from quantile regressions for counts," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 131-145, January.
    5. 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.
    6. Johanna L. Bosch & Elkan F. Halpern & G. Scott Gazelle, 2002. "Comparison of Preference-Based Utilities of the Short-Form 36 Health Survey and Health Utilities Index before and after Treatment of Patients with Intermittent Claudication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(5), pages 403-409, October.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Roger Koenker & Kevin F. Hallock, 2001. "Quantile Regression," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 143-156, Fall.
    10. John Brazier & Mark Deverill, 1999. "A checklist for judging preference‐based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 41-51, February.
    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. Gunasekara, Fiona Imlach & Carter, Kristie & Blakely, Tony, 2012. "Comparing self-rated health and self-assessed change in health in a longitudinal survey: Which is more valid?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(7), pages 1117-1124.
    2. 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.
    3. Victor Champonnois & Olivier Chanel, 2016. "How useful are (Censored) Quantile Regressions for Contingent Valuation?," Working Papers 2016.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    4. 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.
    5. Lene Lunde, 2013. "Can EQ-5D and 15D be used interchangeably in economic evaluations? Assessing quality of life in post-stroke patients," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(3), pages 539-550, June.

    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. Christine McDonough & Anna Tosteson, 2007. "Measuring Preferences for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 93-106, February.
    2. D. Stratmann‐Schoene & T. Kuehn & R. Kreienberg & R. Leidl, 2006. "A preference‐based index for the SF‐12," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 553-564, June.
    3. Stavros Petrou & Christine Hockley, 2005. "An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(11), pages 1169-1189, November.
    4. 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.
    5. Yaling Yang & John Brazier & Louise Longworth, 2015. "EQ-5D in skin conditions: an assessment of validity and responsiveness," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(9), pages 927-939, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Silvia Garrido & Ildefonso Méndez & José-María Abellán, 2013. "Analysing the Simultaneous Relationship Between Life Satisfaction and Health-Related Quality of Life," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 1813-1838, December.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Stirling Bryan & Louise Longworth, 2005. "Measuring health-related utility:," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(3), pages 253-260, September.
    11. 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.
    12. Kontodimopoulos, Nick & Niakas, Dimitris, 2008. "An estimate of lifelong costs and QALYs in renal replacement therapy based on patients' life expectancy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 85-96, April.
    13. 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.
    14. Marra, Carlo A. & Woolcott, John C. & Kopec, Jacek A. & Shojania, Kamran & Offer, Robert & Brazier, John E. & Esdaile, John M. & Anis, Aslam H., 2005. "A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(7), pages 1571-1582, April.
    15. Garry Barton & Tracey Sach & Michael Doherty & Anthony Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Kenneth Muir, 2008. "An assessment of the discriminative ability of the EQ-5D index , SF-6D, and EQ VAS, using sociodemographic factors and clinical conditions," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(3), pages 237-249, August.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. L. M. Lamers & C. A. M. Bouwmans & A. van Straten & M. C. H. Donker & L. Hakkaart, 2006. "Comparison of EQ‐5D and SF‐6D utilities in mental health patients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(11), pages 1229-1236, November.
    19. Richard Huan Xu & Dong Dong & Nan Luo & Eliza Lai-Yi Wong & Yushan Wu & Siyue Yu & Renchi Yang & Junshuai Liu & Huiqin Yuan & Shuyang Zhang, 2021. "Evaluating the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D among patients with haemophilia," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(4), pages 547-557, June.
    20. Nick Kontodimopoulos & Evelina Pappa & Zinovia Chadjiapostolou & Eleni Arvanitaki & Angelos Papadopoulos & Dimitris Niakas, 2012. "Comparing the sensitivity of EQ-5D, SF-6D and 15D utilities to the specific effect of diabetic complications," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(1), pages 111-120, February.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:19:y:2010:i:6:p:683-696. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.