Improving the mapping of condition-specific health-related quality of life onto SF-6D score

Yingsi Yang, M Y Wong, Cindy L K Lam, Carlos K H Wong, Yingsi Yang, M Y Wong, Cindy L K Lam, Carlos K H Wong

Abstract

Background: This study sought to improve the predicative performance and goodness-of-fit of mapping models, as part of indirect valuation, by introducing cubic spline smoothing to map a group of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures onto a preference-based measure.

Methods: This study was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional health survey data assessing the HRQOL for patients with colorectal neoplasms. Mapping functions of condition-specific functional assessment of cancer therapy-colorectal (FACT-C) onto preference-based SF-6D measure were developed using a dataset of 553 Chinese subjects with different stages of colorectal neoplasm. The missing values of FACT-C were imputed using multiple imputation. Then three widely applicable models (ordinary least square (OLS), Tobit and two-part models) were employed for the mapping function after applying the cubic spline smoothing on the data. For the evaluation of the effectiveness of cubic spline smoothing and multiple imputation, the goodness-of-fit and prediction performance of each model were compared.

Results: Analyses showed that the models fitted with transformed data from cubic spline smoothing offered better performance in goodness-of-fit and prediction than the models fitted with the original data. The values of [Formula: see text] were improved by over 10%, and the root mean square error and the mean absolute error were both reduced. The best goodness-of-fit and performance were achieved by OLS model using transformed data from cubic spline smoothing.

Conclusions: Cubic spline smoothing and multiple imputation were recommended for the mapping of HRQOL measures onto the preference-based measure. Among the three mapping models, the simple-to-use OLS model had the best performance.

References

    1. Eur J Health Econ. 2010 Apr;11(2):215-25
    1. Value Health. 2008 Mar-Apr;11(2):295-303
    1. Qual Life Res. 2000;9(8):901-10
    1. Qual Life Res. 2013 Aug;22(6):1415-26
    1. Value Health. 2012 May;15(3):495-503
    1. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e58341
    1. Med Decis Making. 2008 Jan-Feb;28(1):66-89
    1. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012 Dec;18(6):1203-10
    1. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Feb;67(2):219-27
    1. Stat Med. 1989 May;8(5):551-61
    1. Value Health. 2010 Jun-Jul;13(4):487-94
    1. Value Health. 2013 Mar-Apr;16(2):373-84
    1. Hong Kong Med J. 2011 Dec;17 Suppl 6:17-21
    1. Health Serv Res. 2008 Feb;43(1 Pt 1):327-39
    1. Value Health. 2002 Jul-Aug;5(4):329-37
    1. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010 Jun;17(6):1471-4
    1. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003 Dec 16;1:79
    1. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012 Dec;18(6):1186-95
    1. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999 Mar;8(1):3-15
    1. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 May;66(5):557-65

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi