Predicting an SF-6D preference-based score using MCS and PCS scores from the SF-12 or SF-36

Value in Health

Volumn 12, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 958-966

  Hanmer, Janel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

MCS; PCS; Prediction; SF 12; SF 36; SF 6D

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MENTAL COMPONENT SUMMARY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PHYSICAL COMPONENT SUMMARY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; SHORT FORM 12; SHORT FORM 36; SHORT FORM 6D; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; QUESTIONNAIRES; SEX FACTORS; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 67651215990     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00535.x     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Dewey JE. How to Score Version Two of the SF-36 Health Survey. Lincoln, RI : QualityMetric, Incorporated, 2000.
2. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Turner-Bowker DM, Gandek B. How to Score Version 2 of the SF-12® Health Survey (With a Supplement Documenting Version 1). Lincoln, RI : QualityMetric Incorporated, 2002.
3. Gold MR, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York : Oxford University Press, 1996.
4. Fryback DG, Lawrence WF, Martin PA, et al. Predicting quality of well-being scores from the SF-36: results from the beaver dam health outcomes study. Med Decis Making 1997 17 : 1 9.
5. Nichol MB, Sengupta N, Globe D. Evaluating quality adjusted life years: estimation of the Health Utility Index (HUI) from the SF-36. Med Decis Making 2001 21 : 19 26.
6. Franks P, Lubetkin EI, Gold MR, Tancredi DJ. Mapping the SF-12 to preference-based instruments: convergent validity in a low-income, minority population. Med Care 2003 41 : 1277 83.
7. Franks P, Lubetkin EI, Gold MR, et al. Mapping the SF-12 to the EuroQol EQ-5D Index in a national US sample. Med Decis Making 2004 24 : 247 54.
8. Lawrence WF, Fleishman JA. Predicting the EuroQol EQ-5D preference scores from the SF-12 health survey in a nationally representative sample. Med Decis Making 2004 24 : 160 9.
9. Sengupta N, Nichol MB, Wu J, Globe D. Mapping the SF-12 to the HUI3 and VAS in a managed care population. Med Care 2004 42 : 927 37.
10. Ara R, Brazier J. Deriving an algorithm to convert the eight mean SF-36 dimension scores to a mean EQ-5D preference-based score from published studies (Where Patient level data are not available). Value Health 2008 11 : 1131 43.
11. Brazier JE, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care 2004 42 : 851 9.
12. Ara R, Brazier J. Predicting the short form-6D preference-based index using the eight mean short form-36 health dimension scores: estimating preference-based health-related utilities when patient level data are not available. Value Health July 18, 2008 [Epub ahead of print].
13. Cohen JW, Monheit AC, Beauregard KM, et al. The medical expenditure panel survey: a national health information resource. Inquiry 1996-1997 33 : 373 89.
14. Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R, et al. The beaver dam health outcomes study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making 1993 13 : 89 102.
15. Linton KLP, Klein BEK, Klein R. The validity of self-reported and surrogate-reported cataract and age-related macular degeneration in the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Am J Epidemiol 1991 134 : 1438 46.
16. Fryback DG, Dunham N, Palta M, et al. The National Health Measurement Study: simultaneous U.S. norms for six generic Health-Related Quality-of-Life Instruments. Med Care 2007 45 : 1162 70.
17. Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, Spiegelhalter D. WinBUGS - a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure and extensibility. Stat Comp 2000 10 : 325 37.
18. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, van der Linde A. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit (with Discussion). J Royal Stat Soc B Met 2002 64 : 583 616.
19. Hanmer J, Hays RD, Fryback DG. Mode of administration is important in U.S. national estimates of health-related quality of life. Med Care 2007 45 : 1171 9.
20. Walter SJ, Brazier JE. What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003 1 : 4. Available from: http://www.hqlo.com/ content/1/1/4 [Accessed June 2007 SJ.
21. Boonen A, Patel V, Traina S, et al. Rapid and sustained improvement in health-related quality of life and utility for 72 weeks in patients with Ankylosing spondylitis receiving Etanercept. J Rheumatol 2008 35 : 662 7.