This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (4) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Mortimer, D. Articles by Segal, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mortimer, D. Articles by Segal, L. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Comparing the Incomparable? A Systematic Review of Competing Techniques for Converting Descriptive Measures of Health Status into QALY-Weights

Centre for Health Economics, Faculty of Business & Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, duncan.mortimer{at}buseco.monash.edu.au

Leonie Segal, PhD

Centre for Health Economics, Faculty of Business & Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Background . Algorithms for converting descriptive measures of health status into quality-adjusted life year (QALY)—weights are now widely available, and their application in economic evaluation is increasingly commonplace. The objective of this study is to describe and compare existing conversion algorithms and to highlight issues bearing on the derivation and interpretation of the QALY-weights so obtained. Methods. Systematic review of algorithms for converting descriptive measures of health status into QALY-weights. Results. The review identified a substantial body of literature comprising 46 derivation studies and 16 studies that provided evidence or commentary on the validity of conversion algorithms. Conversion algorithms were derived using 1 of 4 techniques: 1) transfer to utility regression, 2) response mapping, 3) effect size translation, and 4) "revaluing" outcome measures using preference-based scaling techniques. Although these techniques differ in their methodological/theoretical tradition, data requirements, and ease of derivation and application, the available evidence suggests that the sensitivity and validity of derived QALY-weights may be more dependent on the coverage and sensitivity of measures and the disease area/patient group under evaluation than on the technique used in derivation. Conclusions . Despite the recent proliferation of conversion algorithms, a number of questions bearing on the derivation and interpretation of derived QALY-weights remain unresolved. These unresolved issues suggest directions for future research in this area. In the meantime, analysts seeking guidance in selecting derived QALY-weights should consider the validity and feasibility of each conversion algorithm in the disease area and patient group under evaluation rather than restricting their choice to weights from a particular derivation technique.

Key Words: quality-adjusted life years • health status • resource allocation • outcome assessment (health care). (Med Decis Making 2008;28:66—89)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 28, No. 1, 66-89 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07309642


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. P. Wakker Lessons Learned by (from?) an Economist Working in Medical Decision Making Med Decis Making, September 1, 2008; 28(5): 690 - 698. [Abstract] [PDF]