Mapping the Health of Nation Outcomes Scale (HoNOS) onto the Recovering Quality of Life Utility Index (ReQoL-UI)

Aim: The aim of this project is to develop and assess a mapping function to predict ReQoL-UI (a patient-reported mental health-specific preference-based measure) scores from HoNOS scores (clinician-reported measure, Health of Nation Outcomes Score). Methods: Participants were recruited from 14 secondary mental health services in England, UK, and their clinician completed HoNoS. Mapping models were estimated using Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) on individual level and mean level data and different model specifications were explored. Model performance was assessed using mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE), percentage of observations with absolute errors greater than 0.1, and plots of the observed and predicted ReQoL-UI utilities and errors. Results: Matched ReQoL-UI and HoNOS scores were collected for 649 participants. The sample comprised 56% inpatients, with overall mean ReQoL-UI utility of 0.683 and range from 1 to -0.195. Correlations between ReQoL-UI (items and utility) and HoNOS scores were moderate (0.2<r<0.4) or small (<0.2). The best model was OLS estimated using mean level data, with lowest MAE (0.046) and RMSE (0.056). Discussion: There is little conceptual overlap between ReQoL-UI and HoNOS. They measure different concepts and, arguably, service users and clinicians, who complete the measures respectively, have different perspectives. Under these circumstances, caution is recommended when applying these estimates

Sensitivity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L in patients with uncontrolled focal seizures: an analysis of Phase III trials of adjunctive brivaracetam.

PURPOSE: Preference-based measures are required to measure the impact of interventions for cost-effectiveness analysis. This study assessed the psychometric performance of the EQ-5D-3L in adults with uncontrolled focal (partial-onset) seizures. METHODS: Data from three Phase III studies of an antiepileptic drug (adjunctive brivaracetam; n = 1095) were used. Analysis included correlations between EQ-5D-3L and Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory (QOLIE-31P) and seizure frequency. Known group validity was based on ability of the EQ-5D-3L to discriminate between baseline QOLIE-31P total scores, seizure type and number of antiepileptic drugs using effect sizes (ES). Responsiveness assessed proportions reporting highest or lowest scores, overall change using standardized response means (SRM) and change by responder and clinician/patient evaluation groups using ES. RESULTS: Correlations were weak to moderate (ρ = 0.2-0.4) between EQ-5D-3L dimensions and QOLIE-31P subscales, apart from medication effects (ρ < 0.1); seizure frequency was not associated with either measure. Known group analysis had small ES. A quarter (24.9%) of patients had a baseline EQ-5D-3L utility score of 1 (full health) but lower average QOLIE-31P scores. SRMs were small (<0.1) in EQ-5D-3L compared with 0.1-0.4 for QOLIE-31P subscales. Results across the studies were mixed for responder status and clinician/patient evaluation of improvement for EQ-5D-3L. CONCLUSIONS: EQ-5D-3L had weak-to-moderate correlations with QOLIE-31P and varied with QOLIE-31P severity groups, but showed less responsiveness than QOLIE-31P. Given this lack of sensitivity, EQ-5D-3L may not be appropriate for measuring the impact of interventions in cost-effectiveness analysis in this population and disease-specific preference-based measures may be more appropriate

Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: systematic review, statistical modelling and survey.

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2014Background: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends the use of generic preference-based measures (GPBMs) of health for its Health Technology Assessments (HTAs). However, these data may not be available or appropriate for all health conditions. Objectives: To determine whether GPBMs are appropriate for some key conditions and to explore alternative methods of utility estimation when data from GPBMs are unavailable or inappropriate. Design: The project was conducted in three stages: (1) A systematic review of the psychometric properties of three commonly used GPBMs [EQ-5D, SF-6D and Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3)] in four broadly defined conditions: visual impairment, hearing impairment, cancer and skin conditions. (2) Potential modelling approaches to ‘map’ EQ-5D values from condition-specific and clinical measures of health [European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – General Scale (FACT-G)] are compared for predictive ability and goodness of fit using two separate data sets. (3) Three potential extensions to the EQ-5D are developed as ‘bolt-on’ items relating to hearing, tiredness and vision. They are valued using the time trade-off method. A second valuation study is conducted to fully value the EQ-5D with and without the vision bolt-on item in an additional sample of 300 people. Main outcome measures: Comparisons of EQ-5D, SF-6D and HUI3 in four conditions with various generic and condition-specific measures. Mapping functions were estimated between EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G with EQ-5D. Three bolt-ons to the EQ-5D were developed: EQ + hearing/vision/tiredness. A full valuation study was conducted for the EQ + vision. Results: (1) EQ-5D was valid and responsive for skin conditions and most cancers; in vision, its performance varied according to aetiology; and performance was poor for hearing impairments. The HUI3 performed well for hearing and vision disorders. It also performed well in cancers although evidence was limited and there was no evidence in skin conditions. There were limited data for SF-6D in all four conditions and limited evidence on reliability of all instruments. (2) Mapping algorithms were estimated to predict EQ-5D values from alternative cancer-specific measures of health. Response mapping using all the domain scores was the best performing model for the EORTC QLQ-C30. In an exploratory analysis, a limited dependent variable mixture model performed better than an equivalent linear model. In the full analysis for the FACT-G, linear regression using ordinary least squares gave the best predictions followed by the tobit model. (3) The exploratory valuation study found that bolt-on items for vision, hearing and tiredness had a significant impact on values of the health states, but the direction and magnitude of differences depended on the severity of the health state. The vision bolt-on item had a statistically significant impact on EQ-5D health state values and a full valuation model was estimated. Conclusions: EQ-5D performs well in studies of cancer and skin conditions. Mapping techniques provide a solution to predict EQ-5D values where EQ-5D has not been administered. For conditions where EQ-5D was found to be inappropriate, including some vision disorders and for hearing, bolt-ons provide a promising solution. More primary research into the psychometric properties of the generic preference-based measures is required, particularly in cancer and for the assessment of reliability. Further research is needed for the development and valuation of bolt-ons to EQ-5D.UK Medical Research Council (MRC) as part of the MRC-NIHR methodology research programme (reference G0901486

Convergent validity of EQ-5D with core outcomes in dementia: a systematic review

Objectives To explore through a systematic review, the convergent validity of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L (total score and dimensions)) with core outcomes in dementia and investigate how this may be impacted by rater-type; with the aim of informing researchers when choosing measures to use in dementia trials. Methods To identify articles relevant to the convergent validity of EQ-5D with core dementia outcomes, three databases were electronically searched to September 2022. Studies were considered eligible for inclusion within the review if they included individual level data from people with dementia of any type, collected self and/or proxy reported EQ-5D and collected at least one core dementia outcome measure. Relevant data such as study sample size, stage of dementia and administration of EQ-5D was extracted, and a narrative synthesis was adopted. Results The search strategy retrieved 271 unique records, of which 30 met the inclusion criteria for the review. Twelve different core outcome measures were used to capture dementia outcomes: cognition, function, and behaviour/mood across the studies. Most studies used EQ-5D-3L (n = 27). Evidence related to the relationship between EQ-5D and measures of function and behaviour/mood was the most robust, with unanimous directions of associations, and more statistically significant findings. EQ-5D dimensions exhibited associations with corresponding clinical outcomes, whereby relationships were stronger with proxy-EQ-5D (than self-report). Conclusion Measuring health-rated quality of life in dementia populations is a complex issue, particularly when considering balancing the challenges associated with both self and proxy report. Published evidence indicates that EQ-5D shows evidence of convergent validity with the key dementia outcomes, therefore capturing these relevant dementia outcomes. The degree of associations with clinical measures was stronger when considering proxy-reported EQ-5D and differed by EQ-5D dimension type. This review has revealed that, despite the limited targeted psychometric evidence pool and reliance on clinical and observational studies, EQ-5D exhibits convergent validity with other dementia outcome measures

Comparison of Modes of Administration and Alternative Formats for Eliciting Societal Preferences for Burden of Illness.

BACKGROUND: Proposals for value-based assessment, made by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK, recommended that burden of illness (BOI) should be used to weight QALY gain. This paper explores some of the methodological issues in eliciting societal preferences for BOI. AIMS: This study explores the impact of mode of administration and framing in a survey for eliciting societal preferences for BOI. METHODS: A pairwise comparison survey with six arms was conducted online and via face-to-face interviews, involving two different wordings of questions and the inclusion/exclusion of pictures. Respondents were asked which of two patient groups they thought a publically funded health service should treat, where the groups varied by life expectancy without treatment, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) without treatment, survival gain from treatment, and HRQOL gain from treatment. Responses across different modes of administration, wording and use of pictures were compared using chi-squared tests and probit regression analysis controlling for respondent socio-demographic characteristics. RESULTS: The sample contained 371 respondents: 69 were interviewed and 302 completed the questionnaire online. There were some differences in socio-demographic characteristics across the online and interview samples. Online respondents were less likely to choose the group with higher BOI and more likely to treat those with a higher QALY gain, but there were no statistically significant differences by wording or the inclusion of pictures for the majority of questions. Regression analysis confirmed these results. Respondents chose to treat the group with larger treatment gain, but there was little support for treating the group with higher BOI. Respondents also preferred to treat the group with treatment gains in life expectancy rather than HRQOL. CONCLUSIONS: Mode of administration did impact on responses, whereas question wording and pictures did not impact on responses, even after controlling for the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents in the regression analysis

Evaluating public health interventions for obesity from the perspective of local health authorities

The aim of the Policy Research Unit in Economic Evaluation in Health and Care Interventions is to assist policy makers in the Department of Health (DH) to improve the allocation of resources through high - quality research. As part of the agreed programme, the unit will be undertaking applied research on obesity with special reference to evaluating public health interventions for obesity from th e local health perspectives (Annex 1) . The focus on interventions at the local level emanates from the government’s policy of local authorities in increasing the wellbeing of their po pulation as articulated below: “Local government is best placed to influence many of the wider factors that affect health and wellbeing.”[1] This paper has been produced on request from the DH a nd is designed as a discussion document intended for dissemination to policy makers to help identify areas around which joint dis cussions would be useful in terms of identifying potential ideas, issues and questions relating to the project remit

Understanding UK public views on normative decisions made to value health-related quality of life in children: a qualitative study

Developing methodology for measuring and valuing child health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is a priority for health technology agencies. One aspect of this is normative decisions that are made in child HRQoL valuation. This qualitative study aimed to better understand adult public opinion on the normative questions of whose preferences to elicit (adults, children, or both) and from which perspective (who should be imagined living in impaired health), when valuing child HRQoL. Opinions of the adult UK public (N = 32) were solicited using online semi-structured focus groups, featuring a breadth of age, sex, ethnicities, and responsibility for children under 18 years. Participants were provided with bespoke informational material on health state valuation and were probed for their views. Arguments for and against different positions were discussed. Data was analysed using framework analysis. Participants demonstrated near-to-universal agreement that children should be involved in valuation in some form, yet this should differ depending on age or maturity. There was strong support for approaches combining involvement from children and adults (e.g., their parents), especially for younger children. There was little intuitive support for the ‘taxpayer argument’ for asking taxpaying adults. In the context of greater involvement of children in valuation, most participants supported using an ‘own’ perspective. Most participants thought that valuation study participants should know the exercise is about valuing child health states for ethical reasons. Informed views from the UK public on who should be asked and with what perspective when valuing child HRQoL appear to differ from normative positions previously advocated by some health economists, such as prioritising the preferences of taxpaying adults. In contrast, the results suggest including adults and children in valuation, with the proviso that the children are of an appropriate age and level of maturity, and that an own perspective is used wherever possible