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