Predicting the short form-6D preference-based index using the eight mean short form-36 health dimension scores: Estimating preference-based health-related utilities when patient level data are not available

60Citations
Citations of this article
50Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: The objective is to derive an algorithm to predict a cohort preference-based short form-6D (short form-6D) score using the eight mean health dimension scores from the short form-36 (SF-36) when patient level data are not available. Methods: Health-related quality of life data (N = 6890) covering a wide range of health conditions was used to explore the relationship between the SF-6D and the eight health dimension scores. Models obtained using ordinary least square regressions were compared for goodness of fit and predictive abilities on both within-sample subgroups and out-of-sample published data sets. Results: The models explained more than 83% of the variance in the individual SF-6D scores with a mean absolute error of 0.040. When using mean health dimension scores from within-sample subgroups and out-of-sample published data sets, the majority of predicted scores were well within the minimal important difference (0.041) for the SF-6D. Conclusions: This article presents a mechanism to estimate a mean cohort preference-based SF-6D score using the eight mean health dimension scores of the SF-36. Using published summary statistics, the out-of-sample validation demonstrates that the algorithms can be used to inform both clinical and economic research. Further research is required in different health conditions. © 2008, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR).

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ara, R., & Brazier, J. (2009). Predicting the short form-6D preference-based index using the eight mean short form-36 health dimension scores: Estimating preference-based health-related utilities when patient level data are not available. Value in Health, 12(2), 346–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00428.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free