Mapping SF-36 onto the EQ-5D index: how reliable is the relationship?

Rowen, D and Brazier, J and Roberts, J (2008): Mapping SF-36 onto the EQ-5D index: how reliable is the relationship? Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes , Vol. 7, (2009): p. 27.

Abstract

Mapping from health status measures onto generic preference-based measures is becoming a common solution when health state utility values are not directly available for economic evaluation. However the accuracy and reliability of the models employed is largely untested, and there is little evidence of their suitability in patient datasets. This paper examines whether mapping approaches are reliable and accurate in terms of their predictions for a large and varied UK patient dataset. SF-36 dimension scores are mapped onto the EQ-5D index using a number of different model specifications. The predicted EQ-5D scores for subsets of the sample are compared across inpatient and outpatient settings and medical conditions. This paper compares the results to those obtained from existing mapping functions. Our results suggest that models mapping the SF-36 onto the EQ-5D have similar predictions across inpatient and outpatient setting and medical conditions. However, the models overpredict for more severe EQ-5D states; this problem is also present in the existing mapping functions.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: health status; SF-36; SF-12; EQ-5D; utility; mapping
• Subjects: I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I3 - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty > I31 - General Welfare, Well-Being; I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I1 - Health > I19 - Other

References

Ara R, Brazier J (2008). Deriving an algorithm to convert the eight mean SF-36 dimension scores into a mean EQ-5D preference-based score from published studies (where patient level data are not available). Value in Health, forthcoming.

Brazier JE, Harper R, Thomas K, Jones N, Underwood T (1998). Deriving a preference based single index measure from the SF-36. J Clinical Epidemiology 51(11):1115-29.

Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health fromthe SF-36. Journal of Health Economics 21:271-92.

Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics 13:873-84.

Brazier J, Yang Y, Tsuchiya A (2007). Review of methods for mapping between condition specific measures onto generic measures of health. Report prepared for the Office of Health Economics, May 2007.

Chay KY, Powell JL (2001). Semiparametric censored regression models. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 15:29-42.

Currie CJ, McEwan P, Peters JR, Patel TC, Dixon S (2005). The routine collation of health outcomes data from hospital treated subjects in the Health Outcomes Data Repository (HODaR): descriptive analysis from the first 20,000 subjects. Value in Health 8:581-90.

Dolan P (1997). Modeling Valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care 35:1095-108.

Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, Goldsmith CH, Zhu Z, DePauw S, Denton M, Boyle M (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 System. Medical Care 40:113-28.

Franks P, Lubetkin EI, Gold MR, Tancredi DJ, Haomiao J (2004). Mapping the SF-12 to the EuroQol EQ-5D Index in a national US sample. Medical Decision Making 24:247-54.

Gray AM, Rivero-Arias O, Clarke PM (2006). Estimating the association between SF-12 responses and EQ-5D utility values by response mapping. Medical Decision Making 26:18-29.

Greene WH (2000). Econometric analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Jenkinson C, Layte R, Wright L, Coulter A (1996). The UK SF-36: An analysis and interpretation manual. Oxford: Health Services Research Unit.

Kind P, Hardman G, Macran S (1999). UK population norms for EQ-5D. Centre for Health Economics Discussion Paper 172, University of York, York.

Lawrence WF, Fleishman JA (2004). Predicting EuroQoL EQ-5D preference scores from the SF-12 health survey in a nationally representative sample. Medical Decision Making 24:160-9.

McCabe C, Stevens K, Roberts J, Brazier J (2005). Health state values for the HUI 2 descriptive system: Results from a UK survey. Health Economics 14:231-44.

NICE (2008) Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. NICE, London. http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/devnicetech/technologyappraisalprocessguides/guidetothemethodsoftechnologyappraisal.jsp

Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ (2005). US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Medical Care 43:203-20.

Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan V (2006). Mapping the EQ-5D index from the SF-12: US general population preferences in a nationally representative sample. Medical Decision Making 26:401-9.

Ware JE, Kolinski M, Keller SD (1995). How to score the SF-12 physical and mental health summaries: a user’s manual. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre, Boston, MA.