Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Mar;29(3):733-743.
doi: 10.1007/s11136-019-02341-3. Epub 2019 Nov 1.

A conceptual map of health-related quality of life dimensions: key lessons for a new instrument

Affiliations

A conceptual map of health-related quality of life dimensions: key lessons for a new instrument

Jan Abel Olsen et al. Qual Life Res. 2020 Mar.

Abstract

Purpose: Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) represent a critical metric in economic evaluations impacting key healthcare decisions in many countries. However, there is widespread disagreement as to which is the best of the health state utility (HSU) instruments that are designed to measure the Q in the QALY. Instruments differ in their descriptive systems as well as their valuation methodologies; that is, they simply measure different things. We propose a visual framework that can be utilized to make meaningful comparisons across HSU instruments.

Methods: The framework expands on existing HRQoL models, by incorporating four distinctive continua, and by putting HRQoL within the broader notion of subjective well-being (SWB). Using this conceptual map, we locate the five most widely used HSU-instruments (EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI, 15D, AQoL).

Results: By individually mapping dimensions onto this visual framework, we provide a clear picture of the significant conceptual and operational differences between instruments. Moreover, the conceptual map demonstrates the varying extent to which each instrument moves outside the traditional biomedical focus of physical health, to also incorporate indicators of mental health and social well-being.

Conclusion: Our visual comparison provides useful insights to assess the suitability of different instruments for particular purposes. Following on from this comparative analyses, we extract some important lessons for a new instrument that cover the domains of physical, mental and social aspects of health, i.e. it is in alignment with the seminal 1948 WHO definition of health.

Keywords: EQ-5D; Health state utility instruments; QALYs; SF-6D.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
A conceptual map of health and well-being: The health dimensions included in HSU instruments, and the general life domains included in the PWI, placed in a theoretical context
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
A conceptual map of the Health Utility Index, HUI (8 items). a Other psychological: happy/unhappy (emotions), b Other physical: dexterity
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
A conceptual map of the 15D (14 items mapped, excluding the sex item: impact of health on sexual behaviour). a Other physical: eating, breathing, elimination
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
A conceptual map of the EQ-5D (5 items)
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
A conceptual map of the SF-6D. *The item Physical functioning relates to Mobility and Self care; the item Role functioning relates to Self-care and Usual activities; the item Social functioning refers to limitations in social activities, which relates to Social relationships; the item Mental health refers to Depression and ‘very nervous’ which relates to Anxiety
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
A conceptual map of AQoL-8D. aOther psychological: dependence, control, coping, anger, confidence, self-worth, self-harm, happy (× 2)

References

    1. Brazier JE, Ara R, Rowen D, Chevrou-Severac H. A review of generic preference-based Measures for use in cost-effectiveness models. PharmacoEconomics. 2017;35(1):21–31. doi: 10.1007/s40273-017-0545-x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gamst-Klaussen T, Chen G, Lamu AN, Olsen JA. Health state utility instruments compared: inquiring into nonlinearity across EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI-3 and 15D. Quality of Life Research. 2016;25(7):1667–1678. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-1212-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Richardson J, Iezzi A, Khan MA. Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: the relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro-utility’ effects. Quality of Life Research. 2015;24:2045–2053. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-0926-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
    1. Rowen D, Zouraq IA, Chevrou-Severac H, van Hout B. International regulations and recommendations for utility data for health technology assessment. PharmacoEconomics. 2017;35(1):11–19. doi: 10.1007/s40273-017-0544-y. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources