Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Modelling utility weights for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The objective of this paper is to describe the four-stage methodology used to obtain utility scores for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D, a 35-item 8 dimension multi-attribute utility instrument, which was created to achieve a high degree of sensitivity to psycho-social health.

Methods

Data for the analyses were obtained from a representative group of 347 members of the Australian public and from 323 mental health patients each of whom provided VAS and time trade-off valuations of multiple health states. Data were used initially to create multiplicative scoring algorithms for each of the instrument’s 8 dimensions and for the overall instrument. Each of the algorithms was then subject to a second-stage econometric ‘correction’.

Results

Algorithms were successfully created for each of the AQoL-8D’s dimensions, for physical and mental ‘super-dimensions’ and for the overall AQoL-8D instrument. The final AQoL-8D algorithm has good predictive power with respect to the TTO valuations.

Conclusions

The AQoL-8D is a suitable instrument for researchers conducting cost utility analyses generally but, in particular, for the analysis of services affecting psycho-social health.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2007). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Richardson, J., McKie, J., & Bariola, E. (2014). Multi attribute utility instruments and their use. In A. J. Culyer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Health Economics. San Diego: Elsevier Science.

  3. Moock, J., & Kohlmann, T. (2008). Comparing preference-based quality-of-life measures: Results from rehabilitation patients with musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or psychosomatic disorders. Quality of Life Research, 17, 485–495.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fryback, D. G., Palta, M., Cherepanov, D., Bolt, D., & Kim, J. (2010). Comparison of 5 health related quality of life indexes using item response theory analysis. Medical Decision Making, 30, 5–15.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dolan, P., Lee, H., & Peasgood, T. (2012). Losing sight of the wood for the trees: Some issues in describing and valuing health, and another possible approach. Pharmacoeconomics, 30, 1035–1049.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bowling, A. (1995). What things are important in people’s lives? A survey of the public’s judgements to inform scales of health related quality of life. Social Science and Medicine, 41, 1447–1462.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2012). World happiness report. New York: Earth Institute, Columbia University. http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/articles/view/2960 (Accessed April 30, 2012).

  8. Richardson, J., Day, N. A., Peacock, S., & Iezzi, A. (2004). Measurement of the quality of life for economic evaluation and the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) mark 2 instrument. Australian Economic Review, 37, 62–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Richardson, J., Elsworth, G., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., Mihalopoulos, C., Schweitzer, I., et al. (2011). Increasing the sensitivity of the AQoL inventory for evaluation of interventions affecting mental health, research paper 61. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.

    Google Scholar 

  10. McDonald, R. P. (2005). Semiconfirmatory factor analysis: The example of anxiety and depression. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12, 163–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sintonen, H., & Pekurinen, M. (1989). A generic 15 dimensional measure of health-related quality of life (15D). Journal of Social Medicine, 26, 85–96.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Torrance, G., Boyle, M., & Horwood, S. (1982). Application of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health status. Operations Research, 30, 1043–1069.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Feeny, D., Furlong, W., & Torrance, G. (1996). Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 (HUI 2/3) 15 item questionnaire for self-administered, self assessed usual health status. Hamilton, ON: Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G., Goldsmith, C., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., et al. (2002). Multi attribute and single attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40, 113–128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Osborne, R. (1999). The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: A psychometric measure of health related quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 8, 209–224.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35, 1095–1108.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21, 271–292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Streiner, D., & Norman, G. R. (2003). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Iezzi, A., & Richardson, J. (2009). Measuring quality of life at the CHE: Description of instruments, interview props and their administration, research paper 41. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., Sinha, K., Mihalopoulos, C., Herrman, H., et al. (2009). Data used in the development of the AQoL-8D (PsyQoL) quality of life instrument, research paper 40. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hoinville, G., Jowell, R., Airey, C., Brook, J., Courtenay, G., Hedges, B., et al. (1977). Survey research practice. London: Heinemann Educational Books.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Richardson, J., & AQoL Group. (2013). Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) users (Vol. 2013). http://www.aqol.com.au/index.php/aqoluserinfo. (Melbourne: http://www.aqol.com.au/).

  25. Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2012). Cross-national comparison of twelve quality of life instruments. Research Papers 78, 80–83, 85. MIC Report: 2: Australia; 3: UK; 4: USA; 5: Canada; 6: Norway; 7: Germany. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University. http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/centres/che/che-publications.html (Accessed January 25, 2013).

  26. Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., & Maxwell, A. (2013). Validity and reliability of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL-8D) multi attribute utility instrument. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. doi:10.1007/s40271-013-0036-x.

  27. Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Chen, G., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2012). Population norms and Australian profile using the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) 8D utility instrument, research paper 72. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.

    Google Scholar 

  28. ABS. (2013). Australian demographic statistics, population by age and sex, Cat 3201.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3201.0Jun%202010?OpenDocument (Accessed August 12, 2013).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Business and Economics, Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Wellington Road, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia

    Jeff Richardson, Kompal Sinha, Angelo Iezzi & Munir A. Khan

Authors
  1. Jeff Richardson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kompal Sinha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Angelo Iezzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Munir A. Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeff Richardson.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PPT 202 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 28 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Richardson, J., Sinha, K., Iezzi, A. et al. Modelling utility weights for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D. Qual Life Res 23, 2395–2404 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0686-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0686-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation