Shedding new light onto the ceiling and floor?

A quantile regression approach to compare EQ-5D and SF-6D responses

Janelle Seymour, Paul McNamee, Anthony Scott, Michela Tinelli

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

An important issue in the measurement of health status concerns the extent to which an instrument displays lack of sensitivity to changes in health status at the extremes of the distribution, known as floor and ceiling effects. Previous studies use relatively simple methods that focus on the mean of the distribution to examine these effects. The aim of this paper is to determine whether quantile regression using longitudinal data improves our understanding of the relationship between quality of life instruments. The study uses EQ-5D and SF-36 (converted to SF-6D values) instruments with both baseline and follow-up data. Relative to ordinary least least-squares (OLS), a first difference model shows much lower association between the measures, suggesting that OLS methods may lead to biased estimates of the association, due to unobservable patient characteristics. The novel finding, revealed by quantile regression, is that the strength of association between the instruments is different across different parts of the health distribution, and is dependent on whether health improves or deteriorates. The results suggest that choosing one instrument at the expense of another is difficult without good prior information surrounding the expected magnitude and direction or health improvement related to a health-care intervention.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)683-696
Number of pages14
JournalHealth Economics
Volume19
Issue number6
Early online date5 Jun 2009
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2010

Fingerprint

Least-Squares Analysis
Health Status
Health
Quality of Life
Delivery of Health Care
Direction compound

Keywords

  • generic preference-weighted measures
  • EQ-5D
  • SF-6D
  • quantile regression
  • responsiveness
  • quality-of-life
  • health utilities index
  • preference-based utilities
  • rheumatoid artritis
  • intermittent claudication
  • instruments
  • disease
  • patient
  • trial
  • HUI3

Cite this

Shedding new light onto the ceiling and floor? A quantile regression approach to compare EQ-5D and SF-6D responses. / Seymour, Janelle; McNamee, Paul; Scott, Anthony; Tinelli, Michela.

In: Health Economics, Vol. 19, No. 6, 06.2010, p. 683-696.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Seymour, Janelle ; McNamee, Paul ; Scott, Anthony ; Tinelli, Michela. / Shedding new light onto the ceiling and floor? A quantile regression approach to compare EQ-5D and SF-6D responses. In: Health Economics. 2010 ; Vol. 19, No. 6. pp. 683-696.
@article{9e7e0e4eda91431f8c5fd954b5f741ae,
title = "Shedding new light onto the ceiling and floor?: A quantile regression approach to compare EQ-5D and SF-6D responses",
abstract = "An important issue in the measurement of health status concerns the extent to which an instrument displays lack of sensitivity to changes in health status at the extremes of the distribution, known as floor and ceiling effects. Previous studies use relatively simple methods that focus on the mean of the distribution to examine these effects. The aim of this paper is to determine whether quantile regression using longitudinal data improves our understanding of the relationship between quality of life instruments. The study uses EQ-5D and SF-36 (converted to SF-6D values) instruments with both baseline and follow-up data. Relative to ordinary least least-squares (OLS), a first difference model shows much lower association between the measures, suggesting that OLS methods may lead to biased estimates of the association, due to unobservable patient characteristics. The novel finding, revealed by quantile regression, is that the strength of association between the instruments is different across different parts of the health distribution, and is dependent on whether health improves or deteriorates. The results suggest that choosing one instrument at the expense of another is difficult without good prior information surrounding the expected magnitude and direction or health improvement related to a health-care intervention.",
keywords = "generic preference-weighted measures, EQ-5D, SF-6D, quantile regression, responsiveness, quality-of-life, health utilities index, preference-based utilities, rheumatoid artritis, intermittent claudication, instruments, disease, patient, trial, HUI3",
author = "Janelle Seymour and Paul McNamee and Anthony Scott and Michela Tinelli",
year = "2010",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1002/hec.1505",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "683--696",
journal = "Health Economics",
issn = "1057-9230",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Shedding new light onto the ceiling and floor?

T2 - A quantile regression approach to compare EQ-5D and SF-6D responses

AU - Seymour, Janelle

AU - McNamee, Paul

AU - Scott, Anthony

AU - Tinelli, Michela

PY - 2010/6

Y1 - 2010/6

N2 - An important issue in the measurement of health status concerns the extent to which an instrument displays lack of sensitivity to changes in health status at the extremes of the distribution, known as floor and ceiling effects. Previous studies use relatively simple methods that focus on the mean of the distribution to examine these effects. The aim of this paper is to determine whether quantile regression using longitudinal data improves our understanding of the relationship between quality of life instruments. The study uses EQ-5D and SF-36 (converted to SF-6D values) instruments with both baseline and follow-up data. Relative to ordinary least least-squares (OLS), a first difference model shows much lower association between the measures, suggesting that OLS methods may lead to biased estimates of the association, due to unobservable patient characteristics. The novel finding, revealed by quantile regression, is that the strength of association between the instruments is different across different parts of the health distribution, and is dependent on whether health improves or deteriorates. The results suggest that choosing one instrument at the expense of another is difficult without good prior information surrounding the expected magnitude and direction or health improvement related to a health-care intervention.

AB - An important issue in the measurement of health status concerns the extent to which an instrument displays lack of sensitivity to changes in health status at the extremes of the distribution, known as floor and ceiling effects. Previous studies use relatively simple methods that focus on the mean of the distribution to examine these effects. The aim of this paper is to determine whether quantile regression using longitudinal data improves our understanding of the relationship between quality of life instruments. The study uses EQ-5D and SF-36 (converted to SF-6D values) instruments with both baseline and follow-up data. Relative to ordinary least least-squares (OLS), a first difference model shows much lower association between the measures, suggesting that OLS methods may lead to biased estimates of the association, due to unobservable patient characteristics. The novel finding, revealed by quantile regression, is that the strength of association between the instruments is different across different parts of the health distribution, and is dependent on whether health improves or deteriorates. The results suggest that choosing one instrument at the expense of another is difficult without good prior information surrounding the expected magnitude and direction or health improvement related to a health-care intervention.

KW - generic preference-weighted measures

KW - EQ-5D

KW - SF-6D

KW - quantile regression

KW - responsiveness

KW - quality-of-life

KW - health utilities index

KW - preference-based utilities

KW - rheumatoid artritis

KW - intermittent claudication

KW - instruments

KW - disease

KW - patient

KW - trial

KW - HUI3

U2 - 10.1002/hec.1505

DO - 10.1002/hec.1505

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 683

EP - 696

JO - Health Economics

JF - Health Economics

SN - 1057-9230

IS - 6

ER -