Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Assessing outcomes for cost-utility analysis in depression: comparison of five multi-attribute utility instruments with two depression-specific outcome measures

  • Cathrine Mihalopoulos (a1), Gang Chen (a2), Angelo Iezzi (a3), Munir A. Khan (a3) and Jeffrey Richardson (a3)...

Abstract

Background

Many mental health surveys and clinical studies do not include a multi-attribute utility instrument (MAUI) that produces quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). There is also some question about the sensitivity of the existing utility instruments to mental health.

Aims

To compare the sensitivity of five commonly used MAUIs (Assessment of Quality of Life – Eight Dimension Scale (AQoL-8D), EuroQoL–five dimension (EQ-5D-5L), Short Form 6D (SF-6D), Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3), 15D) with that of disease-specific depression outcome measures (Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21) and the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10)) and develop ‘crosswalk’ transformation algorithms between the measures.

Method

Individual data from 917 people with self-report depression collected as part of the International Multi-Instrument Comparison Survey.

Results

All the MAUIs discriminated between the levels of severity measured by the K10 and the DASS-21. The AQoL-8D had the highest correlation with the disease-specific measures and the best goodness-of-fit transformation properties.

Conclusions

The algorithms developed in this study can be used to determine cost-effectiveness of services or interventions where utility measures are not collected.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Assessing outcomes for cost-utility analysis in depression: comparison of five multi-attribute utility instruments with two depression-specific outcome measures
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Assessing outcomes for cost-utility analysis in depression: comparison of five multi-attribute utility instruments with two depression-specific outcome measures
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Assessing outcomes for cost-utility analysis in depression: comparison of five multi-attribute utility instruments with two depression-specific outcome measures
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

Cathrine Mihalopoulos, Deakin Health Economics, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Hwy, Burwood 3125, Victoria, Australia. Email: cathy.mihalopoulos@deakin.edu.au

Footnotes

Hide All

Declaration of interest

The authors would like to declare that J.R., A.I., M.A.K. and C.M. were all involved in the construction of the AQoL-8D instrument.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
1 Ishak, WW Burt, T Sederer, LI Outcome Measurement in Psychiatry: A Critical Review. American Psychiatric Association, 2002.
2 Brooks, R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37: 5372.
3 Brazier, J. Is the EQ-5D fit for purpose in mental health? Br J Psychiatry 2010; 197: 348–9.
4 Richardson, J Khan, M Iezzi, A Preliminary results for the validation of the Assessment of Quality of Life AQoL-8D instrument. Research Paper 47. Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, 2010.
5 Brazier, J Roberts, J Deverill, M The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002; 21: 271–92.
6 Horsman, J Furlong, W Feeny, D Torrance, G The Health Utilities Index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 54.
7 Sintonen, H. The 15D measure of of HRQoL: Reliability, Validity and the Sensitivity of its Health State Descriptive System. NCHPE, Monash University/The University of Melbourne, 1994.
8 Kessler, RC Barker, PR Colpe, LJ Epstein, JF Gfroerer, JC Hiripi, E, et al. Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2003; 60: 184–9.
9 Lovibond, SH Lovibond, PF. Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (2nd edn). Psychology Foundation, 1995.
10 Richardson, J Iezzi, A Maxwell, A Cross-National Comparison of Twelve Quality of Life Instruments: MIC paper 1 Background, Questions, Instruments. Centre for Health economics, 2012.
11 Richardson, J Iezzi, A Khan, MA Maxwell, A Cross-national Comparison of Twelve Quality of Life Instruments, MIC Paper 2: Australia, Research Paper 78. Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, 2012.
12 Seiber, WJ Groessl, EJ David, KM Ganiats, TG, Kaplan, RM ) Scale: User's Manual. University of California – San Diego, 2008.
13 Richardson, J Sinha, K Iezzi, A Khan, M Modelling the Utility of Health States with the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) 8D Instrument: Overview and Utility Scoring Algorithm. Research Paper 2011(63). Centre for Health Economics, 2011.
14 Rabin, R Oemar, M Oppe, M Janssen, B, Herdman M. EQ-5D-5L User Guide: Basic Information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L Instrument. EuroQoL Group, 2011.
15 Kharroubi, SA O'Hagan, A Brazier, JE Estimating utilities from individual health preference data: a non parametric bayesian approach. Appl Stat 2005; 54: 879–95.
16 Brazier, J Ratcliffe, J Salomon, JA Tsuchiya, A Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation. Oxford University Press, 2007.
17 Shelley, D Cohen, D. Testing Psychological Tests. Croom Helm, 1986.
18 Fitzpatrick, R Davey, C Buxton, MJ Jones, DR Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 1998; 2: 174.
19 Byford, S. The validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D measure of health-related quality of life in an adolescent population with persistent major depression. J Ment Health 2013; 22: 101–10.
20 Mortimer, D Segal, L Sturm, J Can we derive an 'exchange rate' between descriptive and preference-based outcome measures for stroke? Results from the transfer to utility (TTU) technique. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2009; 7: 33.
21 Mortimer, D Segal, L. Comparing the incomparable? A systematic review of competing techniques for converting descriptive measures of health status into QALY-weights. Med Decis Making 2008; 28: 6689.
22 Rabe-Hesketh, S Everitt, B. A Handbook of Statistical Analyses Using Stata (4th edn). Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2007.
23 Brazier, JE Yang, Y Tsuchiya, A Rowen, DL A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur J Health Econ 2010; 11: 215–25.
24 Fox, J. Applied Regression Analysis and Generalized Linear Models (2nd edn). SAGE Publications, 2008.
25 Cameron, AC Trivedi, PK. Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
26 Peasgood, T Brazier, J Papaioannou, D A Systematic Review of the Validity and Responsiveness of EQ-5D and SF-6D for Depression and Anxiety. HEDS Discussion Paper 12/15. University of Sheffield, 2012 (http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/74659/).
27 O'Neil, A Berk, M Itsiopoulos, C Castle, D Opie, R Pizzinga, J et al. A randomised, controlled trial of a dietary intervention for adults with major depression (the “SMILES” trial): study protocol. BMC Psychiatry 2013; 13: 114.
28 Gowers, SG Harrington, RC Whitton, A Lelliott, P Beevor, A Wing, J, et al. Brief scale for measuring the outcomes of emotional and behavioural disorders in children. Health of the Nation Outcome Scales for children and Adolescents (HoNOSCA). Br J Psychiatry 1999; 174: 413–6.
29 Angold, A Costello, EJ Messer, SC The development of a short questionnaire for use in epidemiological studies of depression in children and adolescents. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 1995; 5: 237–49.
30 Poznanski, EO Grossman, JA Buchsbaum, Y Banegas, M Freeman, L, Gibbons, R Preliminary studies of the reliability and validity of the children's depression rating scale. J Am Acad Child Psychiatry 1984; 23: 191–7.
31 Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2007 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing: Summary of Results. Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008.
32 Serrano-Blanco, A Pinto-Meza, A Suarez, D Penarrubia, MT, Haro, JM Cost-utility of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for depression in primary care in Catalonia. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2006; 114: 3947.
33 Viney, R Norman, R King, MT Cronin, P Street, DJ Knox, S, et al. Time trade-off derived EQ-5D weights for Australia. Value Health 2011; 14: 928–36.
Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary materials

Mihalopoulos et al. supplementary material
Supplementary Table S1-S3

 PDF (44 KB)
44 KB

Assessing outcomes for cost-utility analysis in depression: comparison of five multi-attribute utility instruments with two depression-specific outcome measures

  • Cathrine Mihalopoulos (a1), Gang Chen (a2), Angelo Iezzi (a3), Munir A. Khan (a3) and Jeffrey Richardson (a3)...

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed

Assessing outcomes for cost-utility analysis in depression: comparison of five multi-attribute utility instruments with two depression-specific outcome measures

  • Cathrine Mihalopoulos (a1), Gang Chen (a2), Angelo Iezzi (a3), Munir A. Khan (a3) and Jeffrey Richardson (a3)...
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *