Cargando…
Calculating Utilities From the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire: A Necessity for Economic and Decision Analysis
General population utility valuation study. OBJECTIVE. The aim of this study was to develop a technique for calculating utilities from the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire v2.0 (SOSGOQ2.0). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. The ability to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8357033/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34334684 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000003981 |
_version_ | 1783737057757102080 |
---|---|
author | Pahuta, Markian A. Fisk, Felicity Versteeg, Anne L. Fisher, Charles G. Sahgal, Arjun Gokaslan, Ziya L. Reynolds, Jeremy J. Laufer, Ilya Lazary, Aron Rhines, Laurence D. Boriani, Stefano Bettegowda, Chetan Dea, Nicolas |
author_facet | Pahuta, Markian A. Fisk, Felicity Versteeg, Anne L. Fisher, Charles G. Sahgal, Arjun Gokaslan, Ziya L. Reynolds, Jeremy J. Laufer, Ilya Lazary, Aron Rhines, Laurence D. Boriani, Stefano Bettegowda, Chetan Dea, Nicolas |
author_sort | Pahuta, Markian A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | General population utility valuation study. OBJECTIVE. The aim of this study was to develop a technique for calculating utilities from the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire v2.0 (SOSGOQ2.0). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. The ability to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for metastatic spine disease would enhance treatment decision-making and facilitate economic analysis. QALYs are calculated using utilities. METHODS. Using a hybrid concept-retention and factorial analysis shortening approach, we first shortened the SOSGOQ2.0 to eight items (SOSGOQ-8D). This was done to lessen the cognitive burden of the utility valuation exercise. A general population sample of 2730 adults was then asked to evaluate 12 choice sets based on SOSGOQ-8D health states in a Discrete Choice Experiment. A utility scoring rubric was then developed using a mixed multinomial-logit regression model. RESULTS. We were able to reduce the SOSGOQ2.0 to an SOSGOQ-8D with a mean error of 0.003 and mean absolute error of 3.078 compared to the full questionnaire. The regression model demonstrated good predictive performance and was used to develop a utility scoring rubric. Regression results revealed that participants did not regard all SOSGOQ-8D items as equally important. CONCLUSION. We provide a simple technique for converting the SOSGOQ2.0 to utilities. The ability to evaluate QALYs in metastatic spine disease will facilitate economic analysis and patient counseling. We also quantify the importance of individual SOSGOQ-8D items. Clinicians should heed these findings and offer treatments that maximize function in the most important items. Level of Evidence: 3 |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8357033 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-83570332021-08-18 Calculating Utilities From the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire: A Necessity for Economic and Decision Analysis Pahuta, Markian A. Fisk, Felicity Versteeg, Anne L. Fisher, Charles G. Sahgal, Arjun Gokaslan, Ziya L. Reynolds, Jeremy J. Laufer, Ilya Lazary, Aron Rhines, Laurence D. Boriani, Stefano Bettegowda, Chetan Dea, Nicolas Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Health Services Research General population utility valuation study. OBJECTIVE. The aim of this study was to develop a technique for calculating utilities from the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire v2.0 (SOSGOQ2.0). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. The ability to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for metastatic spine disease would enhance treatment decision-making and facilitate economic analysis. QALYs are calculated using utilities. METHODS. Using a hybrid concept-retention and factorial analysis shortening approach, we first shortened the SOSGOQ2.0 to eight items (SOSGOQ-8D). This was done to lessen the cognitive burden of the utility valuation exercise. A general population sample of 2730 adults was then asked to evaluate 12 choice sets based on SOSGOQ-8D health states in a Discrete Choice Experiment. A utility scoring rubric was then developed using a mixed multinomial-logit regression model. RESULTS. We were able to reduce the SOSGOQ2.0 to an SOSGOQ-8D with a mean error of 0.003 and mean absolute error of 3.078 compared to the full questionnaire. The regression model demonstrated good predictive performance and was used to develop a utility scoring rubric. Regression results revealed that participants did not regard all SOSGOQ-8D items as equally important. CONCLUSION. We provide a simple technique for converting the SOSGOQ2.0 to utilities. The ability to evaluate QALYs in metastatic spine disease will facilitate economic analysis and patient counseling. We also quantify the importance of individual SOSGOQ-8D items. Clinicians should heed these findings and offer treatments that maximize function in the most important items. Level of Evidence: 3 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2021-09-01 2021-07-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8357033/ /pubmed/34334684 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000003981 Text en Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) |
spellingShingle | Health Services Research Pahuta, Markian A. Fisk, Felicity Versteeg, Anne L. Fisher, Charles G. Sahgal, Arjun Gokaslan, Ziya L. Reynolds, Jeremy J. Laufer, Ilya Lazary, Aron Rhines, Laurence D. Boriani, Stefano Bettegowda, Chetan Dea, Nicolas Calculating Utilities From the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire: A Necessity for Economic and Decision Analysis |
title | Calculating Utilities From the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire: A Necessity for Economic and Decision Analysis |
title_full | Calculating Utilities From the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire: A Necessity for Economic and Decision Analysis |
title_fullStr | Calculating Utilities From the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire: A Necessity for Economic and Decision Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Calculating Utilities From the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire: A Necessity for Economic and Decision Analysis |
title_short | Calculating Utilities From the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire: A Necessity for Economic and Decision Analysis |
title_sort | calculating utilities from the spine oncology study group outcomes questionnaire: a necessity for economic and decision analysis |
topic | Health Services Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8357033/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34334684 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000003981 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pahutamarkiana calculatingutilitiesfromthespineoncologystudygroupoutcomesquestionnaireanecessityforeconomicanddecisionanalysis AT fiskfelicity calculatingutilitiesfromthespineoncologystudygroupoutcomesquestionnaireanecessityforeconomicanddecisionanalysis AT versteegannel calculatingutilitiesfromthespineoncologystudygroupoutcomesquestionnaireanecessityforeconomicanddecisionanalysis AT fishercharlesg calculatingutilitiesfromthespineoncologystudygroupoutcomesquestionnaireanecessityforeconomicanddecisionanalysis AT sahgalarjun calculatingutilitiesfromthespineoncologystudygroupoutcomesquestionnaireanecessityforeconomicanddecisionanalysis AT gokaslanziyal calculatingutilitiesfromthespineoncologystudygroupoutcomesquestionnaireanecessityforeconomicanddecisionanalysis AT reynoldsjeremyj calculatingutilitiesfromthespineoncologystudygroupoutcomesquestionnaireanecessityforeconomicanddecisionanalysis AT lauferilya calculatingutilitiesfromthespineoncologystudygroupoutcomesquestionnaireanecessityforeconomicanddecisionanalysis AT lazaryaron calculatingutilitiesfromthespineoncologystudygroupoutcomesquestionnaireanecessityforeconomicanddecisionanalysis AT rhineslaurenced calculatingutilitiesfromthespineoncologystudygroupoutcomesquestionnaireanecessityforeconomicanddecisionanalysis AT borianistefano calculatingutilitiesfromthespineoncologystudygroupoutcomesquestionnaireanecessityforeconomicanddecisionanalysis AT bettegowdachetan calculatingutilitiesfromthespineoncologystudygroupoutcomesquestionnaireanecessityforeconomicanddecisionanalysis AT deanicolas calculatingutilitiesfromthespineoncologystudygroupoutcomesquestionnaireanecessityforeconomicanddecisionanalysis |