Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

Assessment of outcome measures for cost–utility analysis in depression: mapping depression scales onto the EQ-5D-5L

  • Thor Gamst-Klaussen (a1), Admassu N. Lamu (a1), Gang Chen (a2) and Jan Abel Olsen (a3)

Abstract

Background

Many clinical studies including mental health interventions do not use a health state utility instrument, which is essential for producing quality-adjusted life years. In the absence of such utility instrument, mapping algorithms can be applied to estimate utilities from a disease-specific instrument.

Aims

We aim to develop mapping algorithms from two widely used depression scales; the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21) and the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K-10), onto the most widely used health state utility instrument, the EQ-5D-5L, using eight country-specific value sets.

Method

A total of 917 respondents with self-reported depression were recruited to describe their health on the DASS-21 and the K-10 as well as the new five-level version of the EQ-5D, referred to as the EQ-5D-5L. Six regression models were used: ordinary least squares regression, generalised linear models, beta binomial regression, fractional logistic regression model, MM-estimation and censored least absolute deviation. Root mean square error, mean absolute error and r2 were used as model performance criteria to select the optimal mapping function for each country-specific value set.

Results

Fractional logistic regression model was generally preferred in predicting EQ-5D-5L utilities from both DASS-21 and K-10. The only exception was the Japanese value set, where the beta binomial regression performed best.

Conclusions

Mapping algorithms can adequately predict EQ-5D-5L utilities from scores on DASS-21 and K-10. This enables disease-specific data from clinical trials to be applied for estimating outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life years for use in economic evaluations.

Declaration of interest

None.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Assessment of outcome measures for cost–utility analysis in depression: mapping depression scales onto the EQ-5D-5L
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Assessment of outcome measures for cost–utility analysis in depression: mapping depression scales onto the EQ-5D-5L
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Assessment of outcome measures for cost–utility analysis in depression: mapping depression scales onto the EQ-5D-5L
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence: Thor Gamst-Klaussen, MA, Department of Community Medicine, PO Box 6050, University of Tromsø, 9037 Tromsø, Norway. Email: thor.klaussen@uit.no

References

Hide All
1Brazier, J, Ratcliffe, J, Salamon, JTA. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford University Press, 2016.
2Dakin, H. Review of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: an online database. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013; 11: 151.
3World Health Organization. Mental Disorders. World Health Organization, 2017 (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs396/en/).
4Lovibond, SH, Lovibond, PF. Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales. Psychology Foundation, 1995.
5Kessler, RC, Barker, PR, Colpe, LJ, Epstein, JF, Gfroerer, JC, Hiripi, E, et al. Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2003; 60(2): 184–9.
6Mihalopoulos, C, Chen, G, Iezzi, A, Khan, MA, Richardson, J. Assessing outcomes for cost-utility analysis in depression: comparison of five multi-attribute utility instruments with two depression-specific outcome measures. Br J Psychiatry 2014; 205(5): 390–7.
7Wisloff, T, Hagen, G, Hamidi, V, Movik, E, Klemp, M, Olsen, JA. Estimating QALY gains in applied studies: a review of cost-utility analyses published in 2010. Pharmacoeconomics 2014; 32(4): 367–75.
8National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2013 (https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/).
9van Hout, B, Janssen, MF, Feng, YS, Kohlmann, T, Busschbach, J, Golicki, D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3 L value sets. Value Health 2012; 15: 708–15.
10Dolan, P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35(11): 1095–108.
11Augustovski, F, Rey-Ares, L, Irazola, V, Garay, OU, Gianneo, O, Fernandez, G, et al. An EQ-5D-5L value set based on Uruguayan population preferences. Qual Life Res 2015; 25: 323–33.
12Kim, S-H, Ahn, J, Ock, M, Shin, S, Park, J, Luo, N, et al. The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Korea. Qual Life Res 2016; 25(7): 1845–52.
13Luo, N, Liu, G, Li, M, Guan, H, Jin, X, Rand-Hendriksen, K. Estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set for China. Value Health 2017; 20: 662–9.
14Ramos-Goni, JM, Pinto-Prades, JL, Oppe, M, Cabases, JM, Serrano-Aguilar, P, Rivero-Arias, O. Valuation and modeling of EQ-5D-5L health states using a hybrid approach. Med Care 2017; 55: e518.
15Versteegh, MM, Vermeulen, KM, Evers, SMAA, de Wit, GA, Prenger, R, Stolk, EA. Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value Health 2016; 19: 343–52.
16Xie, F, Pullenayegum, E, Gaebel, K, Bansback, N, Bryan, S, Ohinmaa, A, et al. A time trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Med Care 2016; 54: 98105.
17Devlin, NJ, Shah, KK, Feng, Y, Mulhern, B, van Hout, B. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ 2018; 27: 722.
18Shiroiwa, T, Ikeda, S, Noto, S, Igarashi, A, Fukuda, T, Saito, S, et al. Comparison of value set based on DCE and/or TTO data: scoring for EQ-5D-5L health states in Japan. Value Health 2016; 19(5): 648–54.
19Zhao, Y, Li, SP, Liu, L, Zhang, JL, Chen, G. Does the choice of tariff matter?: A comparison of EQ-5D-5L utility scores using Chinese, UK, and Japanese tariffs on patients with psoriasis vulgaris in Central South China. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96(34): e7840.
20Petrou, S, Rivero-Arias, O, Dakin, H, Longworth, L, Oppe, M, Froud, R, et al. Preferred reporting items for studies mapping onto preference-based outcome measures: the MAPS statement. Pharmacoeconomics 2015; 33(10): 985–91.
21Richardson, J, Iezzi, A, Maxwell, A. Cross-national Comparison of Twelve Quality of Life Instruments: MIC Paper 1 Background, Questions, Instruments. Research Paper 76. Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, 2012 (http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/centres/che/pubs/researchpaper76.pdf).
22Herdman, M, Gudex, C, Lloyd, A, Janssen, M, Kind, P, Parkin, D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011; 20(10): 1727–36.
23Russell, DW. In search of underlying dimensions: the use (and abuse) of factor analysis in personality and social psychology bulletin. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2002; 28(12): 1629–46.
24Antony, MM, Bieling, PJ, Cox, BJ, Enns, MW, Swinson, RP. Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales in clinical groups and a community sample. Psychol Assess 1998; 10(2): 176–81.
25Fabrigar, LR, Wegener, DT, MacCallum, RC, Strahan, EJ. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods 1999; 4(3): 272–99.
26Brazier, JE, Yang, Y, Tsuchiya, A, Rowen, DL. A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur J Health Econ 2010; 11: 215–25.
27Smithson, M, Verkuilen, J. A better lemon squeezer? Maximum-likelihood regression with beta distributed dependent variables. Psychol Methods 2006; 11: 5471.
28Khan, I, Morris, S, Pashayan, N, Matata, B, Bashir, Z, Maguirre, J. Comparing the mapping between EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and the EORTC-QLQ-C30 in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2016; 14: 60.
29Papke, LE, Wooldridge, JM. Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401(k) plan participation rates. J Appl Econom 1996; 11(6): 619–32.
30Susanti, Y, Sri Sulistijowai, H, Pratiwi, H, Liana, T. M estimation, S estimation, and MM estimation in robust regression. Int J Pure Appl Mathem 2014; 91(3): 349–60.
31Ayinde, K, Lukman, AF, Arowolo, O. Robust regression diagnostics of influential observations in linear regression model. Open J Stat 2015; 5(4): 272–83.
32Powell, JL. Least absolute deviations estimation for the censored regression model. Journal of Econometrics. 1984; 25(3): 303–25.
33Versteegh, MM, Leunis, A, Luime, JJ, Boggild, M, Uyl-de Groot, CA, Stolk, EA. Mapping QLQ-C30, HAQ, and MSIS-29 on EQ-5D. Med Decis Making 2012; 32: 554–68.
34Sullivan, PW, Ghushchyan, V. Mapping the EQ-5D index from the SF-12: US general population preferences in a nationally representative sample. Med Decis Making 2006; 26(4): 401–9.
35Lindkvist, M, Feldman, I. Assessing outcomes for cost-utility analysis in mental health interventions: mapping mental health specific outcome measure GHQ-12 onto EQ-5D-3L. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2016; 14(1): 134.
36Brazier, J, Connell, J, Papaioannou, D, Mukuria, M, Mulhern, B, Peasgood, T, et al. A systematic review, psychometric analysis and qualitative assessment of generic preference-based measures of health in mental health populations and the estimation of mapping functions from widely used specific measures. Health Technol Assess 2014; 18(34).
37Olsen, JA, Lamu, A, Cairns, J. In search of a common currency: a comparison of seven EQ-5D-5L value sets. Health Econ 2018; 27(1): 3949.
38Brazier, J. Is the EQ-5D fit for purpose in mental health? Br J Psychiatry 2010; 197(5): 348–9.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

BJPsych Open
  • ISSN: -
  • EISSN: 2056-4724
  • URL: /core/journals/bjpsych-open
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Gamst-Klaussen et al. supplementary material
Appendix Tables A1-A4 and Appendix Figure 1

 Word (435 KB)
435 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed

Assessment of outcome measures for cost–utility analysis in depression: mapping depression scales onto the EQ-5D-5L

  • Thor Gamst-Klaussen (a1), Admassu N. Lamu (a1), Gang Chen (a2) and Jan Abel Olsen (a3)
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *