Background. Obtaining reliable preference-based scores from the widely used Healthy Days measures would enable calculation of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost-utility analyses in many US community populations and over time. Previous studies translating the Healthy Days to the EQ-5D, a preference-based measure, relied on an indirect method because of a lack of population-based survey data that asked both sets of questions of the same respondents. Method. Data from the 2005–2006 National Health Measurement Study (NHMS; n = 3844 adults 35 years old or older) were used to develop regression-based models to estimate EQ-5D index scores from self-reported age, self-rated general health, and numbers of unhealthy days. Results. The models explained up to 52% of the variance in the EQ-5D. Estimated EQ-5D scores matched well to the observed EQ-5D scores in mean scores overall and by age, gender, race/ethnicity, income, education, body mass index, smoking, and disease categories. The average absolute differences were 0.005 to 0.006 on a health utility scale. After estimating mean EQ-5D index scores overall and for various subgroups in a large representative US sample of Healthy Days respondents, the authors found that these mean scores also closely matched the corresponding mean scores of EQ-5D respondents obtained from another large US representative sample with an average absolute difference of 0.013 points. Conclusions. This study yielded a mapping algorithm to estimate EQ-5D index scores from the Healthy Days measures for populations of adults 35 years old and older. Such analysis confirms it is feasible to estimate mean EQ-5D index scores with acceptable validity for use in calculating QALYs and cost-utility analyses based on the overall model fit and relatively small differences between the observed and the estimated mean scores.
PatrickDLEricksonP. Health Status and Health Policy: Quality of Life in Health Care Evaluation and Resource Allocation. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993.
2.
McHorneyCA. Health status assessment methods for adults: past accomplishments and future challenges. Annu Rev Public Health. 1999;20:309–35.
3.
BitlerMGelbachJHoynesH. What impacts miss: distributional effects of welfare reform experiments. Am Econ Rev. 2006;96:98–1012.
4.
ZackMMMoriartyDGStroupDFFordESMokdadAH. Worsening trends in adult health-related quality of life and self-rated health—United States, 1993–2001. Public Health Rep. 2004;119:493–505.
5.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Measuring Healthy Days: Population Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Adult and Community Health; 2000.
6.
CohenSB. Design strategies and innovations in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Med Care. 2003;41(suppl):III5–III12.
7.
AgwunobiJO. The Healthy People 2010 Midcourse Review (Executive Summary-Goal 1: Increase Quality and Years of Healthy Life). Washington, DC: US Public Health Service, DHHS; 2006.
8.
GoldMRSiegelJERussellRBWeinsteinMC, eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
9.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). MEPS Fact Sheet. Rockville, MD: AHRQ. http://www.ahrq.gov/data. Accessed August 4, 2008.
10.
MuennigPFranksPJiaHLubetkinEGoldMR. The income-associated burden of disease in the United States. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61:2018–26.
11.
MuennigPLubetkinEJiaHFranksP. Gender and the burden of disease attributable to obesity. Am J Public Health. 2006;96:1662–8.
12.
FrazierELFranksALSandersonLM. Using behavioral risk factor surveillance data. In: CDC, Using Chronic Disease Data: A Handbook for Public Health Practitioners. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1992:4.1–4.17.
13.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Public health surveillance for behavioral risk factors in a changing environment: recommendations from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Team. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2003;52(RR09):1–12.
14.
JiaHLubetkinEIMoriartyDGZackMM. A comparison of Healthy Days and EuroQol EQ-5D measures in two U.S. adult samples. Appl Res Qual Life. 2007;2:209–21.
15.
FrybackDGLawrenceWFMartinPAKleinRKleinBE. Predicting Quality of Well-being scores from the SF-36: results from the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study. Med Decis Making. 1997;17:1–9.
16.
NicholMBSenguptaNGlobeDR. Evaluating quality adjusted life years: estimation of the health utility index (HUI2) from the SF-36. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:105–12.
17.
BrazierJRobertsJDeverillM. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271–92.
18.
FranksPLubetkinEIGoldMRTancrediDJJiaH. Mapping the SF-12 to the EuroQol EQ-5D index in a national U.S. sample. Med Decis Making. 2004;24:247–54.
19.
LawrenceWFFleishmanJA. Predicting EuroQoL EQ-5D preference scores from the SF-12 health survey in a nationally representative sample. Med Decis Making. 2004;24:160–9.
20.
SullivanPGlushchyanV. Preference-based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Decis Making. 2006;26:410–20.
21.
GrayAMRivero-AriasOClarkePM. Estimating the association between SF-12 responses and EQ-5D utility values by response mapping. Med Decis Making. 2006;26:18–29.
22.
JiaHLubetkinEI. Estimating EuroQol EQ-5D index scores from Population Healthy Days Data. Med Decis Making. 2008;28:491–9.
23.
FrybackDGDunhamNCPaltaM. U.S. norms for six generic health-related quality of life indexes from the National Health Measurement Study. Med Care. 2007;45:1162–70.
24.
RabinRdeCharroF. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQoL Group. Ann Med. 2001;33:337–43.
25.
ShawJWJohnsonJACoonsSJ. U.S. valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43:203–20.
26.
WinsbergSRamsayJO. Monotonic transformation to additivity using splines. Biometrika. 1980;67:669–74.
27.
MoriartyDGZackMMKobauR. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Healthy Days Measures: population tracking of perceived physical and mental health over time. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:37.
28.
BrazierJEYangYTsuchiyARowenDL. A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measure of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur J Health Econ. 2010;10:215–25.
29.
LiLFuAZ. Some methodological issues with the analysis of preference-based EQ-5D index scores. Health Serv Outcomes Res Method. 2009;9:162–76.
30.
FranksPLubetkinEIGoldMRTancrediDJ. Mapping the SF-12 to preference-based instruments: convergent validity in a low-income, minority population. Med Care. 2003;41:1277–83.
31.
PaltaMChenH-YFrybackDG. Error standard deviations of five health utility indexes across the range of health: implications for assessing responsiveness. Presented at the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Annual Meeting, Montevideo, Uruguay, 22–25 October 2008.
