Advertisement

Diabetes and quality of life: Comparing results from utility instruments and Diabetes-39

      Highlights

      • Utility scores estimated from different MAU instruments differ significantly.
      • MAU instruments could discriminate between the healthy public and diabetes patients.
      • Mapping algorithms are reported to transform Diabetes-39 scales onto utility scores.

      Abstract

      Objective

      To compare the Diabetes-39 (D-39) with six multi-attribute utility (MAU) instruments (15D, AQoL-8D, EQ-5D, HUI3, QWB, and SF-6D), and to develop mapping algorithms which could be used to transform the D-39 scores into the MAU scores.

      Research design and methods

      Self-reported diabetes sufferers (N = 924) and members of the healthy public (N = 1760), aged 18 years and over, were recruited from 6 countries (Australia 18%, USA 18%, UK 17%, Canada 16%, Norway 16%, and Germany 15%). Apart from the QWB which was distributed normally, non-parametric rank tests were used to compare subgroup utilities and D-39 scores. Mapping algorithms were estimated using ordinary least squares (OLS) and generalised linear models (GLM).

      Results

      MAU instruments discriminated between diabetes patients and the healthy public; however, utilities varied between instruments. The 15D, SF-6D, AQoL-8D had the strongest correlations with the D-39. Except for the HUI3, there were significant differences by gender. Mapping algorithms based on the OLS estimator consistently gave better goodness-of-fit results. The mean absolute error (MAE) values ranged from 0.061 to 0.147, the root mean square error (RMSE) values 0.083 to 0.198, and the R-square statistics 0.428 and 0.610. Based on MAE and RMSE values the preferred mapping is D-39 into 15D. R-square statistics and the range of predicted utilities indicate the preferred mapping is D-39 into AQoL-8D.

      Conclusions

      Utilities estimated from different MAU instruments differ significantly and the outcome of a study could depend upon the instrument used. The algorithms reported in this paper enable D-39 data to be mapped into utilities predicted from any of six instruments. This provides choice for those conducting cost-utility analyses.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. International Diabetes Federation. IDF diabetes atlas (6th ed.), 2013. Available from 〈http://www.idf.org/diabetesatlas〉 [Internet; accessed 30 September 2014].

        • World Health Organization
        10 Facts about diabetes.
        2013 (Available from 〈www.who.int/features/factfiles/diabetes/en/index.html〉 [Internet]. (accessed 28 June 2013))
        • American Diabetes Association
        Diabetes statistics.
        2011 (Available from 〈http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics〉 [Internet]. (accessed 30 September 2014))
        • Li R.
        • Zhang P.
        • Barker L.E.
        • Chowdhury F.M.
        • Zhang X.
        Cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent and control diabetes mellitus: a systematic review.
        Diabetes Care. 2010; 33: 1872-1894
        • Brazier J.
        • Ratcliffe J.
        • Salomon J.
        • Tsuchiya A.
        Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation.
        Oxford University Press Inc, New York, NY2007
        • Brazier J.E.
        • Yang Y.
        • Tsuchiya A.
        • Rowen D.L.
        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: 215-225
        • National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
        Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013.
        2013 (Available from 〈http://publications.nice.org.uk/pmg9〉 [Internet]. (accessed 28 June 2013))
        • WHO
        International classification of functioning, disability and health.
        World Health Organization, Geneva2001 (Available from 〈http://apps.who.int/classifications/icfbrowser/〉 [Internet]. (accessed 27 July 2013))
        • Richardson J.
        • Iezzi A.
        • Maxwell A.
        Cross-national comparison of twelve quality of life instruments: MIC paper 1 background, questions, instruments. vol. 76. Centre for Health Economics Research Paper, 2012
        • Boyer J.G.
        • Earp J.A.L.
        The development of an instrument for assessing the quality of life of people with diabetes.
        Med Care. 1997; 35: 440-453
        • Mortimer D.
        • Segal L.
        Comparing the incomparable? A systematic review of competing techniques for converting descriptive measures of health status into QALY-weights.
        Med Decis Making. 2008; 28: 66-89
        • Rabe-Hesketh S.
        • Everitt B.
        A handbook of statistical analyses using Stata.
        4th ed. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL2007
        • Fox J.
        Applied regression analysis and generalized linear models.
        2nd ed. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA2008
        • Kaambwa B.
        • Billingham L.
        • Bryan S.
        Mapping utility scores from the Barthel index.
        Eur J Health Econ. 2013; 14: 231-241
        • Starkie H.J.
        • Briggs A.H.
        • Chambers M.G.
        • Jones P.
        Predicting EQ-5D values using the SGRQ.
        Value Health. 2011; 14: 354-360
        • Versteegh M.
        • Rowen D.
        • Brazier J.
        • Stolk E.
        Mapping onto Eq-5 D for patients in poor health.
        Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010; 8: 141
        • Husereau D.
        • Drummond M.
        • Petrou S.
        • Carswell C.
        • Moher D.
        • Greenberg D.
        • et al.
        Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)—explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force.
        Value Health. 2013; 16: 231-250
        • Kontodimopoulos N.
        • Pappa E.
        • Chadjiapostolou Z.
        • Arvanitaki E.
        • Papadopoulos A.A.
        • Niakas D.
        Comparing the sensitivity of EQ-5D, SF-6D and 15D utilities to the specific effect of diabetic complications.
        Eur J Health Econ. 2012; 13: 111-120
        • Heijink R.
        • van Baal P.
        • Oppe M.
        • Koolman X.
        • Westert G.
        Decomposing cross-country differences in quality adjusted life expectancy: the impact of value sets.
        Popul Health Metr. 2011; 9: 17
        • Cameron A.C.
        • Trivedi P.K.
        Microeconometrics: methods and applications.
        Cambridge University Press, New York, NY2005