Creating a Multiply Imputed Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L in Canada: State-Level Misspecification Terms Are Needed to Characterize Parameter Uncertainty Correctly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parameter uncertainty in EQ-5D-5L value sets often exceeds the instrument's minimum important difference, yet this is routinely ignored. Multiple imputation (MI) accounts for parameter uncertainty in the value set; however, no valuation study has implemented this methodology. Our objective was to create a Canadian MI value set for the EQ-5D-5L, thus enabling users to account for parameter uncertainty in the value set. METHODS: = 1,073), we first refit the original model followed by models with state-level misspecification. Models were compared based on the adequacy of 95% credible interval (CrI) coverage for out-of-sample predictions. Using the best-fitting model, we took 100 draws from the posterior distribution to create 100 imputed value sets. We examined how much the standard error of the estimated mean health utilities increased after accounting for parameter uncertainty in the value set by using the MI and original value sets to score 2 data sets: 1) a sample of 1,208 individuals from the Canadian general public and 2) a sample of 401 women with breast cancer. RESULTS: The selected model with state-level misspecification outperformed the original model (95% CrI coverage: 94.2% v. 11.6%). We observed wider standard errors for the estimated mean utilities on using the MI value set for both the Canadian general public (MI: 0.0091; original: 0.0035) and patients with breast cancer (MI: 0.0169; original: 0.0066). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: We provide 1) the first MI value sets for the EQ-5D-5L and 2) code to construct MI value sets while accounting for state-level model misspecification. Our study suggests that ignoring parameter uncertainty in value sets leads to falsely narrow SEs. HIGHLIGHTS: Value sets for health state utility instruments are estimated subject to parameter uncertainty; this parameter uncertainty may exceed the minimum important difference of the instrument, yet it is not fully captured using current methods.This study creates the first multiply imputed value set for a multiattribute utility instrument, the EQ-5D-5L, to fully capture this parameter uncertainty.We apply the multiply imputed value set to 2 data sets from 1) the Canadian general public and 2) women with invasive breast cancer.Scoring the EQ-5D-5L using a multiply imputed value set led to wider standard error estimates, suggesting that the current practice of ignoring parameter uncertainty in the value set leads to falsely low standard errors.Our work will be of interest to methodologists and developers of the EQ-5D-5L and users of the EQ-5D-5L, such as health economists, researchers, and policy makers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".