2020
DOI: 10.1177/0272989x19896567
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Exploring the Benefits of Transformations in Health Utility Mapping

Abstract: Background. Quality-of-life research and cost-effectiveness analyses frequently require data on health utility, a global measure of health-related quality of life. When utilities are unavailable, researchers have “mapped” descriptive instruments to utility instruments, using samples of responses to both instruments. Health utilities have an idiosyncratic distribution, with upper bound and probability mass at 1, left skewness, and kurtosis. Estimation of mean utility values conditional on covariates is of inter… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As iHOT-33 and HAGOS scores are anchored by values of 0 and 100, they may not always be optimally modeled using linear regression. To validate the results of our main analysis, we conducted sensitivity analyses using models with arcsine-transformed 26 iHOT-33 and HAGOS scores. The method for transforming the dependent variables is described in Appendix B.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As iHOT-33 and HAGOS scores are anchored by values of 0 and 100, they may not always be optimally modeled using linear regression. To validate the results of our main analysis, we conducted sensitivity analyses using models with arcsine-transformed 26 iHOT-33 and HAGOS scores. The method for transforming the dependent variables is described in Appendix B.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…26 As the iHOT-33 and HAGOS are self-reported measures that quantify patients' perceptions of their hip/groin burden, scores may also be influenced by nonphysical (eg, psychological, social, contextual) factors. 10,65 Nonphysical factors might explain more of the variance in iHOT-Total a 63 [23] 62 [23] 66 [20] iHOT-Symptoms a 70 [23] 69 [24] 72 [20] iHOT-Sport a 45 [27] 46 [31] 44 [18] iHOT-Job b 72 [34] 72 [38] 71 [28] iHOT-Social a 63 [32] 62 [32] 65 [31] HAGOS-Symptoms a 61 [14] 61 [14] 59 [23] HAGOS-Pain a 75 [18] 75 [18] 75 [20] HAGOS-ADL a 80 [20] 80 [20] 80 [25] HAGOS-Sport a 66 [25] 63 [25] 66 [26] HAGOS-PA c 63 [38] 63 [38] 63 [28] HAGOS-QOL a 60 [20] 60 [25] 60 [16] ADL, activities of daily living; FAI, femoroacetabular impingement; HAGOS, Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score; iHOT-33, International Hip Outcome Tool-33; IQR, interquartile range; PA, participation in physical activity; QOL, quality of life. reported burden than imaging findings alone and warrant further investigation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Arcsin transformation of the dependent variables (PROM scores) can be used to stabilize variance and minimize bias in models. 31 Sensitivity analyses using models with arcsin-transformed PROM scores are described in Appendix B (available online).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A total of four models using six different estimation methods were explored. The statistical models chosen in this study were based on previous literature that has tested the alternative methods and took into account the possible non-normal distribution of the data [8,12,15,17,19]. The best model was chosen based on the lowest RMSE and MAE.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A common characteristic of health utilities is the non-normal distribution and the upper bound value of 1. To address this, researchers have shown a potential benefit in transforming health utility responses prior to fitting it with a linear regression model [12]. Alternatively, other models such as the generalised linear model, Tobit and Censored Least Absolute Deviation (CLAD) have been explored [13,14].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%