Estimating utilities for chronic kidney disease, using SF-36 and SF-12-based measures: Challenges in a population of veterans with diabetes

Quality of Life Research

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 53-64

  Rajan, Mangala ^a   Lai, Kuan Chi ^b   Tseng, Chin Lin ^a,c   Qian, Shirley ^d   Selim, Alfredo ^d   Kazis, Lewis ^d   Pogach, Leonard ^a,c   Sinha, Anushua ^a,c  

^a Center for Healthcare Knowledge Management   (United States)

^b ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c RUTGERS NEW JERSEY MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^d BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Diabetes mellitus, type 2; Economics; Quality of life; Utility theory

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; CHRONIC KIDNEY FAILURE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DEVICES; DIABETES MELLITUS; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL RATING SCALE; PSYCHOLOGY; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RENAL REPLACEMENT THERAPY; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; VETERAN; ARTICLE; EQUIPMENT; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT;

ADULT; AGED; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DIABETES MELLITUS; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PSYCHIATRIC STATUS RATING SCALES; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RENAL DIALYSIS; RENAL INSUFFICIENCY, CHRONIC; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; VETERANS;

EID: 84872676531     PISSN: 09629343     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-012-0139-1     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Gold, M. R.; Siegel, J. E.; Russell, L. B.; & Weinstein, M. C. (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Brazier, J.; Roberts, J.; & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271-292.
3. 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(9), 873-884.
4. Brazier, J. E.; & Roberts, J. (2004). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Medical Care, 42(9), 851-859.
5. Brazier, J. E.; Yang, Y.; Tsuchiya, A.; & Rowen, D. L. (2010). A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. European Journal of Health Economics, 11(2), 215-225.
6. Mortimer, D.; & Segal, L. (2008). Comparing the incomparable? A systematic review of competing techniques for converting descriptive measures of health status into QALY-weights. Medical Decision Making, 28(1), 66-89.
7. Nichol, M. B.; Sengupta, N.; & Globe, D. R. (2001). Evaluating quality-adjusted life years: Estimation of the Health Utility Index (HUI2) from the SF-36. Medical Decision Making, 21(2), 105-112.
8. Sullivan, P. W.; & 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(4), 401-409.
9. Donald-Sherbourne, C.; Unutzer, J.; Schoenbaum, M.; Duan, N.; Lenert, L. A.; Sturm, R.; et al. (2001). Can utility-weighted health-related quality-of-life estimates capture health effects of quality improvement for depression? Medical Care, 39(11), 1246-1259.
10. Glasziou, P.; Alexander, J.; Beller, E.; & Clarke, P. (2007). Which health-related quality of life score? A comparison of alternative utility measures in patients with type 2 diabetes in the ADVANCE trial. Health Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, 21.
11. Hollingworth, W.; Deyo, R. A.; Sullivan, S. D.; Emerson, S. S.; Gray, D. T.; & Jarvik, J. G. (2002). The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF-36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain. Health Economics, 11(1), 71-85.
12. Kaplan, R. M.; Groessl, E. J.; Sengupta, N.; Sieber, W. J.; & Ganiats, T. G. (2005). Comparison of measured utility scores and imputed scores from the SF-36 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Medical Care, 43(1), 79-87.
13. Lobo, F. S.; Gross, C. R.; & Matthees, B. J. (2004). Estimation and comparison of derived preference scores from the SF-36 in lung transplant patients. Quality of Life Research, 13(2), 377-388.
14. McDonough, C. M.; Grove, M. R.; Tosteson, T. D.; Lurie, J. D.; Hilibrand, A. S.; & Tosteson, A. N. (2005). Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-36-derived societal health state values among spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT) participants. Quality of Life Research, 14(5), 1321-1332.
15. Pickard, A. S.; Wang, Z.; Walton, S. M.; & Lee, T. A. (2005). Are decisions using cost-utility analyses robust to choice of SF-36/SF-12 preference-based algorithm? Health Quality of Life Outcomes, 3, 11.
16. SF-6D Bayesian programme. (2011). Retrieved May 25, 2011, from http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/scharr/sections/heds/mvh/sf-6d/bayesian.html.
17. Kharroubi, S. A.; Brazier, J. E.; Roberts, J.; & O'Hagan, A. (2007). Modelling SF-6D health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Journal of Health Economics, 26(3), 597-612.
18. Selim, A. J.; Rogers, W.; Qian, S. X.; Brazier, J.; & Kazis, L. E. (2011). A preference-based measure of health: The VR-6D derived from the veterans RAND 12-item health survey. Quality of Life Research, 20(8),1337-1347.
19. Boyle, J. P.; Thompson, T. J.; Gregg, E. W.; Barker, L. E.; & Williamson, D. F. (2010). Projection of the year 2050 burden of diabetes in the US adult population: Dynamic modeling of incidence, mortality, and prediabetes prevalence. Population Health Metrics, 8, 29.
20. US Renal Data System. (2010). USRDS 2010 annual data report: Atlas of chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease in the United States. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, MD, 2010.
21. Kazis, L. E.; Ren, X. S.; Lee, A.; Skinner, K.; Rogers, W.; Clarke, J.; et al. (1999). Health status in VA patients: Results from the Veterans Health Study. American Journal of Medical Quality, 14(1), 28-38.
22. Miller, D. R.; & Pogach, L. (2008). Longitudinal approaches to evaluate health care quality and outcomes: The Veterans Health Administration diabetes epidemiology cohorts. Journal of Diabetes Science Technology, 2(1), 24-32.
23. Miller, D. R.; Safford, M. M.; & Pogach, L. M. (2004). Who has diabetes? Best estimates of diabetes prevalence in the Department of Veterans Affairs based on computerized patient data. Diabetes Care, 27(Suppl 2), b10-b21.
24. Damschroder, L. J.; Zikmund-Fisher, B. J.; & Ubel, P. A. (2008). Considering adaptation in preference elicitations. Health Psychology, 27(3), 394-399.
25. Kostopoulou, O. (2006). The transient nature of utilities and health preferences. Medical Decision Making, 26(4), 304-306.
26. Menzel, P.; Dolan, P.; Richardson, J.; & Olsen, J. A. (2002). The role of adaptation to disability and disease in health state valuation: A preliminary normative analysis. Social Science and Medicine, 55(12), 2149-2158.
27. Dolan, P. (1996). Modelling valuations for health states: The effect of duration. Health Policy, 38(3), 189-203.
28. Kazis, L. E.; Miller, D. R.; Clark, J. A.; Skinner, K. M.; Lee, A.; Ren, X. S.; et al. (2004). Improving the response choices on the veterans SF-36 health survey role functioning scales: Results from the Veterans Health Study. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 27(3), 263-280.
29. Kazis, L. E.; Miller, D. R.; Skinner, K. M.; Lee, A.; Ren, X. S.; Clark, J. A.; et al. (2004). Patient-reported measures of health: The Veterans Health Study. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 27(1), 70-83.
30. Tiwari, A.; Tseng, C. L.; Kern, E. F.; Maney, M.; Miller, D. R.; & Pogach, L. (2007). Facility variation in utilization of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers in patients with diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease. The American Journal of Managed Care, 13(2), 73-79.
31. Miller, W. G. (2009). Estimating glomerular filtration rate. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 47(9), 1017-1019.
32. Levey, A. S.; Coresh, J.; Balk, E.; Kausz, A. T.; Levin, A.; Steffes, M. W.; et al. (2003). National Kidney Foundation practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: Evaluation, classification, and stratification. Annals of Internal Medicine, 139(2), 137-147.
33. Tseng, C. L.; Kern, E. F.; Miller, D. R.; Tiwari, A.; Maney, M.; Rajan, M.; et al. (2008). Survival benefit of nephrologic care in patients with diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 168(1), 55-62.
34. Khanna, D.; Ahmed, M.; Yontz, D.; Ginsburg, S. S.; Park, G. S.; Leonard, A.; et al. (2008). The disutility of chronic gout. Quality of Life Research, 17(5), 815-822.
35. McDonough, C. M.; & Tosteson, A. N. (2007). Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: How choice of method may influence decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics, 25(2), 93-106.
36. Green, C.; Brazier, J.; & Deverill, M. (2000). Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics, 17(2), 151-165.
37. Tsuchiya, A.; Brazier, J.; & Roberts, J. (2006). Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets. Journal of Health Economics, 25(2), 334-346.
38. Kontodimopoulos, N.; Pappa, E.; Papadopoulos, A. A.; Tountas, Y.; & Niakas, D. (2009). Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status. Quality of Life Research, 18(1), 87-97.
39. Dale, P. L.; Hutton, J.; & Elgazzar, H. (2008). Utility of health states in chronic kidney disease: A structured review of the literature. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 24(1), 193-206.
40. Gorodetskaya, I.; Zenios, S.; McCulloch, C. E.; Bostrom, A.; Hsu, C. Y.; Bindman, A. B.; et al. (2005). Health-related quality of life and estimates of utility in chronic kidney disease. Kidney International, 68(6), 2801-2808.
41. Davison, S. N.; Jhangri, G. S.; & Feeny, D. H. (2009). Comparing the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) with the Short Form-36 preference-based SF-6D in chronic kidney disease. Value Health, 12(2), 340-345.
42. Chapman, B. P.; Franks, P.; Duberstein, P. R.; & Jerant, A. (2009). Differences between individual and societal health state valuations: Any link with personality? Medical Care, 47(8), 902-907.
43. Mann, R.; Brazier, J.; & Tsuchiya, A. (2009). A comparison of patient and general population weightings of EQ-5D dimensions. Health Economics, 18(3), 363-372.
44. 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 Health, 11(7), 1131-1143.
45. Franks, P.; Lubetkin, E. I.; Gold, M. R.; & Tancredi, D. J. (2003). Mapping the SF-12 to preference-based instruments: Convergent validity in a low-income, minority population. Medical Care, 41(11), 1277-1283.
46. Franks, P.; Lubetkin, E. I.; Gold, M. R.; Tancredi, D. J.; & Jia, H. (2004). Mapping the SF-12 to the EuroQol EQ-5D index in a national US sample. Medical Decision Making, 24(3), 247-254.
47. Fryback, D. G.; Lawrence, W. F.; Martin, P. A.; Klein, R.; & Klein, B. E. (1997). Predicting Quality of Well-being scores from the SF-36: Results from the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study. Medical Decision Making, 17(1), 1-9.
48. Gray, A. M.; Rivero-Arias, O.; & Clarke, P. M. (2006). Estimating the association between SF-12 responses and EQ-5D utility values by response mapping. Medical Decision Making, 26(1), 18-29.
49. Hawthorne, G.; Densley, K.; Pallant, J. F.; Mortimer, D.; & Segal, L. (2008). Deriving utility scores from the SF-36 health instrument using Rasch analysis. Quality of Life Research, 17(9), 1183-1193.
50. Lawrence, W. F.; & Fleishman, J. A. (2004). Predicting EuroQoL EQ-5D preference scores from the SF-12 health survey in a nationally representative sample. Medical Decision Making, 24(2), 160-169.
51. Le, Q. A.; & Doctor, J. N. (2011). Probabilistic mapping of descriptive health status responses onto health state utilities using Bayesian networks: An empirical analysis converting SF-12 into EQ-5D utility index in a national US sample. Medical Care, 49(5), 451-460.
52. Lundberg, L.; Johannesson, M.; Isacson, D. G.; & Borgquist, L. (1999). The relationship between health-state utilities and the SF-12 in a general population. Medical Decision Making, 19(2), 128-140.
53. Rowen, D.; Brazier, J.; & Roberts, J. (2009). Mapping SF-36 onto the EQ-5D index: How reliable is the relationship? Health Quality of Life Outcomes, 7, 27.
54. Sengupta, N.; Nichol, M. B.; Wu, J.; & Globe, D. (2004). Mapping the SF-12 to the HUI3 and VAS in a managed care population. Medical Care, 42(9), 927-937.
55. Ferreira, L. N.; Ferreira, P. L.; Pereira, L. N.; Brazier, J.; & Rowen, D. (2010). A Portuguese value set for the SF-6D. Value Health, 13(5), 624-630.
56. Petrou, S.; & Hockley, C. (2005). An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Economics, 14(11), 1169-1189.
57. Arnold, D.; Girling, A.; Stevens, A.; & Lilford, R. (2009). Comparison of direct and indirect methods of estimating health state utilities for resource allocation: Review and empirical analysis. British Medical Journal, 339, b2688.
58. Schmidlin, M.; Fritsch, K.; Matthews, F.; Thurnheer, R.; Senn, O.; & Bloch, K. E. (2010). Utility indices in patients with the obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Respiration, 79(3), 200-208.