IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/106170.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A comparison of the responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L and the QOLIE-31P and mapping of QOLIE-31P to EQ-5D-5L in epilepsy

Author

Listed:
  • Wijnen, Ben F.M.
  • Mosweu, Iris
  • Majoie, Marian H.J.M.
  • Ridsdale, Leone
  • de Kinderen, Reina J.A.
  • Evers, Silvia M.A.A.
  • McCrone, Paul

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the responsiveness of and correlation between the EQ-5D-5L and the QOLIE-31P in patients with epilepsy, and develop a mapping function to predict EQ-5D-5L values based on the QOLIE-31P for use in economic evaluations. Methods: The dataset was derived from two clinical trials, the ZMILE study in the Netherlands and the SMILE study in the UK. In both studies, patients’ quality of life using the EQ-5D-5L and QOLIE-31P was measured at baseline and 12 months follow-up. Spearman’s correlations, effect sizes (EF) and standardized response means (SRM) were calculated for both the EQ-5D-5L and QOLIE-31P domains and sub scores. Mapping functions were derived using ordinary least square (OLS) and censored least absolute deviations models. Results: A total of 509 patients were included in this study. Low to moderately strong significant correlations were found between both instruments. The EQ-5D-5L showed high ceiling effects and small EFs and SRMs, whereas the QOLIE-31P did not show ceiling effects and also showed small to moderate EFs and SRMs. Results of the different mapping functions indicate that the highest adjusted R2 we were able to regress was 0.265 using an OLS model with squared terms, leading to a mean absolute error of 0.103. Conclusions: Results presented in this study emphasize the shortcomings of the EQ-5D-5L in epilepsy and the importance of the development of condition-specific preference-based instruments which can be used within the QALY framework. In addition, the usefulness of the constructed mapping function in economic evaluations is questionable.

Suggested Citation

  • Wijnen, Ben F.M. & Mosweu, Iris & Majoie, Marian H.J.M. & Ridsdale, Leone & de Kinderen, Reina J.A. & Evers, Silvia M.A.A. & McCrone, Paul, 2018. "A comparison of the responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L and the QOLIE-31P and mapping of QOLIE-31P to EQ-5D-5L in epilepsy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 106170, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:106170
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/106170/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. John Brazier & Carolyn Czoski-Murray & Jennifer Roberts & Martin Brown & Tara Symonds & Con Kelleher, 2008. "Estimation of a Preference-Based Index from a Condition-Specific Measure: The King's Health Questionnaire," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(1), pages 113-126, January.
    3. Patrick W. Sullivan & Vahram Ghushchyan, 2006. "Mapping the EQ-5D Index from the SF-12: US General Population Preferences in a Nationally Representative Sample," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 401-409, July.
    4. Ralph Crott & Andrew Briggs, 2010. "Mapping the QLQ-C30 quality of life cancer questionnaire to EQ-5D patient preferences," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(4), pages 427-434, August.
    5. Greenberg, Edward & Parks, Robert P, 1997. "A Predictive Approach to Model Selection and Multicollinearity," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 67-75, Jan.-Feb..
    6. John Brazier & Yaling Yang & Aki Tsuchiya & Donna Rowen, 2010. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(2), pages 215-225, April.
    7. Donaldson, Cam & Atkinson, Ann & Bond, John & Wright, Ken, 1988. "Should QALYs be programme-specific?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 239-257, September.
    8. John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya, 2010. "Preference‐based condition‐specific measures of health: what happens to cross programme comparability?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(2), pages 125-129, 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. India Flint & Jasmina Medjedovic & Ewa Drogon O’Flaherty & Elena Alvarez-Baron & Karthinathan Thangavelu & Natasa Savic & Aurelie Meunier & Louise Longworth, 2023. "Mapping analysis to predict SF-6D utilities from health outcomes in people with focal epilepsy," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(7), pages 1061-1072, September.
    2. Aileen R. Neilson & Gareth T. Jones & Gary J. Macfarlane & Ejaz MI Pathan & Paul McNamee, 2022. "Generating EQ-5D-5L health utility scores from BASDAI and BASFI: a mapping study in patients with axial spondyloarthritis using longitudinal UK registry data," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(8), pages 1357-1369, November.

    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. Ben F. M. Wijnen & Iris Mosweu & Marian H. J. M. Majoie & Leone Ridsdale & Reina J. A. Kinderen & Silvia M. A. A. Evers & Paul McCrone, 2018. "A comparison of the responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L and the QOLIE-31P and mapping of QOLIE-31P to EQ-5D-5L in epilepsy," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 861-870, July.
    2. Mona Aghdaee & Bonny Parkinson & Kompal Sinha & Yuanyuan Gu & Rajan Sharma & Emma Olin & Henry Cutler, 2022. "An examination of machine learning to map non‐preference based patient reported outcome measures to health state utility values," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(8), pages 1525-1557, August.
    3. Brazier, John & Rowen, Donna & Tsuchiya, Aki & Yang, Yaling & Young, Tracy A., 2011. "The impact of adding an extra dimension to a preference-based measure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 245-253, July.
    4. John Brazier & Yaling Yang & Aki Tsuchiya & Donna Rowen, 2010. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(2), pages 215-225, April.
    5. Billingsley Kaambwa & Lucinda Billingham & Stirling Bryan, 2013. "Mapping utility scores from the Barthel index," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(2), pages 231-241, April.
    6. Ning Gu & Chris Bell & Marc Botteman & Xiang Ji & John Carter & Ben Hout, 2012. "Estimating Preference-Based EQ-5D Health State Utilities or Item Responses from Neuropathic Pain Scores," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(3), pages 185-197, September.
    7. 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.
    8. Weidong Huang & Hongjuan Yu & Chaojie Liu & Guoxiang Liu & Qunhong Wu & Jin Zhou & Xin Zhang & Xiaowen Zhao & Linmei Shi & Xiaoxue Xu, 2017. "Assessing Health-Related Quality of Life of Chinese Adults in Heilongjiang Using EQ-5D-3L," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-16, February.
    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. Richard Huan Xu & Eliza Lai Yi Wong & Jun Jin & Ying Dou & Dong Dong, 2020. "Mapping of the EORTC QLQ-C30 to EQ-5D-5L index in patients with lymphomas," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(9), pages 1363-1373, December.
    11. Mulhern, B & Rowen, D & Brazier, J & Jacoby, A & Marson, T & Snape, D & Hughes, D & Latimer, N & Baker, GA, 2010. "Developing a health state classification system from NEWQOL for epilepsy using classical psychometric techniques and Rasch analysis: a technical report," MPRA Paper 29970, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. 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.
    13. Sun Sun & Erik Stenberg & Yang Cao & Lars Lindholm & Klas-Göran Salén & Karl A. Franklin & Nan Luo, 2023. "Mapping the obesity problems scale to the SF-6D: results based on the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry (SOReg)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(2), pages 279-292, March.
    14. 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.
    15. Rodríguez-Míguez, E. & Abellán-Perpiñán, J.M. & Alvarez, X.C. & González, X.M. & Sampayo, A.R., 2016. "The DEP-6D, a new preference-based measure to assess health states of dependency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 210-219.
    16. Moustapha Touré & Christian R. C. Kouakou & Thomas G. Poder, 2021. "Dimensions Used in Instruments for QALY Calculation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-22, April.
    17. 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.
    18. Mulhern, B & Smith, SC & Rowen, D & Brazier, JE & Knapp, M & Lamping, DL & Loftus, V & Young, Tracey A. & Howard, RJ & Banerjee, S, 2010. "Improving the measurement of QALYs in dementia: developing patient- and carer-reported health state classification systems using Rasch analysis," MPRA Paper 29948, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Fan Yang & Nancy Devlin & Nan Luo, 2019. "Impact of mapped EQ-5D utilities on cost-effectiveness analysis: in the case of dialysis treatments," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 99-105, February.
    20. Martijn S Visser & Sankha Amarakoon & Tom Missotten & Reinier Timman & Jan J Busschbach, 2017. "SF-6D utility values for the better- and worse-seeing eye for health states based on the Snellen equivalent in patients with age-related macular degeneration," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-9, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    epilepsy; mapping; quality of life; responsiveness;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis

    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:ehl:lserod:106170. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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.