Mapping of the World Health Organization's Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 to disability weights using the Multi-Country Survey Study on Health and Responsiveness.
WHODAS-2.0
disability weight
mapping function
multi-country survey study on health and responsiveness
Journal
International journal of methods in psychiatric research
ISSN: 1557-0657
Titre abrégé: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9111433
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2021
09 2021
Historique:
revised:
07
06
2021
received:
04
02
2021
accepted:
23
06
2021
pubmed:
11
7
2021
medline:
26
10
2021
entrez:
10
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To develop and test an internationally applicable mapping function for converting WHODAS-2.0 scores to disability weights, thereby enabling WHODAS-2.0 to be used in cost-utility analyses and sectoral decision-making. Data from 14 countries were used from the WHO Multi-Country Survey Study on Health and Responsiveness, administered among nationally representative samples of respondents aged 18+ years who were non-institutionalized and living in private households. For the combined total of 92,006 respondents, available WHODAS-2.0 items (for both 36-item and 12-item versions) were mapped onto disability weight estimates using a machine learning approach, whereby data were split into separate training and test sets; cross-validation was used to compare the performance of different regression and penalized regression models. Sensitivity analyses considered different imputation strategies and compared overall model performance with that of country-specific models. Mapping functions converted WHODAS-2.0 scores into disability weights; R-squared values of 0.700-0.754 were obtained for the test data set. Penalized regression models reached comparable performance to standard regression models but with fewer predictors. Imputation had little impact on model performance. Model performance of the generic model on country-specific test sets was comparable to model performance of country-specific models. Disability weights can be generated with good accuracy using WHODAS 2.0 scores, including in national settings where health state valuations are not directly available, which signifies the utility of WHODAS as an outcome measure in evaluative studies that express intervention benefits in terms of QALYs gained.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34245195
doi: 10.1002/mpr.1886
pmc: PMC8412228
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1886Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019 Jun;17(3):295-313
pubmed: 30945127
Lancet Glob Health. 2015 Nov;3(11):e712-23
pubmed: 26475018
Fam Med. 2018 Mar;50(3):179-187
pubmed: 29537460
Bull World Health Organ. 2010 Nov 1;88(11):815-23
pubmed: 21076562
Stroke. 1996 Oct;27(10):1812-6
pubmed: 8841336
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017 Apr;15(2):127-137
pubmed: 28194657
Eur J Health Econ. 2018 Jul;19(6):861-870
pubmed: 28871490
Med Care. 1997 Nov;35(11):1095-108
pubmed: 9366889
Bull World Health Organ. 2012 Nov 1;90(11):813-21
pubmed: 23226893
Lancet. 2015 Aug 29;386(9996):928-30
pubmed: 26138141
Lancet. 2018 Nov 10;392(10159):1789-1858
pubmed: 30496104
Med Decis Making. 2013 Apr;33(3):325-32
pubmed: 22961101
Health Technol Assess. 2008 Apr;12(7):iii, ix-x, 1-175
pubmed: 18373906
Monaldi Arch Chest Dis. 2012 Sep;78(3):155-9
pubmed: 23614330
Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2021 Sep;30(3):e1886
pubmed: 34245195
Vaccine. 2010 Mar 8;28(11):2356-9
pubmed: 19567247
Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(11):1075-82
pubmed: 16277545
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010 May 19;8:51
pubmed: 20482853
BMJ. 2019 Mar 12;364:l886
pubmed: 30862612
Circulation. 2015 Jan 13;131(2):211-9
pubmed: 25561516
Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Jan 6;66(1):149-153
pubmed: 29020316
J Health Econ. 2002 Mar;21(2):271-92
pubmed: 11939242