Skip to main content

Table 1 Algorithms to convert item responses from generic health-related quality of life instruments into utility measures

From: Which health-related quality of life score? A comparison of alternative utility measures in patients with Type 2 diabetes in the ADVANCE trial

Study (denoted by primary author and instrument) Dolan EQ-5D Shaw EQ-5D Brazier SF-6D (SF-12) Brazier SF-6D (SF-36) Lundberg SF-12 Lawrence SF-12 (MEPS) Franks SF-12 (MEPS) Franks SF-12 Fryback SF-36
Type of Algorithm EQ-5D based algorithm SF-6D based algorithm SF-12 based algorithm SF-36 based algorithm
QoL Questionnaire EQ-5D EQ-5D SF-12 SF-36 SF-12 SF-12 SF-12 SF-12 SF-36
Number items used 5 5 7 11 (of 36) 12 (of 36) 12 12 12 36
Methods for valuing utility Time Trade Off Time Trade Off Standard Gamble Standard Gamble Time Trade Off Mapping to the UK based EQ-5D tariffs Mapping to the UK based EQ-5D tariffs Mapping to the UK based EQ-5D tariffs Quality well being index
Reported range in the ADVANCE trial patients -0.18 to 1 0.20 to 1 0.41 to 1 0.35 to 1 0.47 to 0.98 0.20 to 1.01 0.046 to 0.975 -0.07 to 0.94 0.509 to 0.836
Health states sampled 243 243 249 249 NA NA NA NA NA
Population General population General population General population General population General population General population General population Low income, minority population General population
Country where developed UK USA UK UK Sweden USA USA USA USA
Description of process 3,667 individuals rating 12 health states from the possible 243 states. 4,048 individuals rating 13 from the possible 243 states. 611 individuals rating 6 health states from 6-dimensional health state classification (3518 observations) 611 individuals rating 6 health states from 6-dimensional health state classification (3518 observations) Postal questionnaire 5,400 individuals using SF12 plus TTO question. Regression used to derive utilities. 14,580 respondents who completed the Medical Expenditure Panel survey 2000. 15,000 respondents who completed the Medical Expenditure Panel survey 2000. 240 respondents attending a community health centre in New York 1,356 respondents who participated in the Beaver Dam Health study