Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Mapping the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) to SF-6Dv2 in Chinese patients with heart failure

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes volume 20, Article number: 98 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

Mapping the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) to SF-6Dv2 in Chinese patients with chronic heart failure, and to obtain the health utility value for health economic assessment.

Methods

Four statistical algorithms, including ordinary least square method (OLS), Tobit model, robust MM estimator (MM) and censored least absolute deviations (CLAD), were used to establish the alternative model. Models were validated by using a tenfold cross-validation technique. The mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square error (RMSE) were used to evaluate the prediction performance of the model. The Spearman correlation coefficient and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) were used to examine the relationship between the predicted and observed SF-6Dv2 values.

Results

A total of 195 patients with chronic heart failure were recruited from 3 general hospitals in Beijing. The MLHFQ summary score and domain scores of the study sample were negatively correlated with SF-6Dv2 health utility value. The OLS regression model established based on the MLHFQ domain scores was the optimal fitting model and the predicted value was highly positively correlated with the observed value.

Conclusion

The MLHFQ can be mapped to SF-6Dv2 by OLS, which can be used for health economic assessment of cardiovascular diseases such as chronic heart failure.

Background

Heart failure (HF) is a major public health problem affecting at least 26 million patients worldwide [1]. The prevalence of HF in the United States alone is about 5.7 million, and there are about 670,000 new cases annually. In Europe, HF resulted in more than 1 million hospitalizations annually [2]. In China, the morbidity of HF in adults over 35 years old is about 1.3%, which affects more than 13 million patients [3]. The incidence and prevalence of heart failure are age dependent [4], as the population ages, the number of patients affected by HF will continue to increase. HF is associated with enormous health care expenditures and poses a huge economic burden to the health budgets globally. The annual cost of heart failure ranges from $ 908 to $ 40,971 per patient [4]. The overall economic cost of HF was estimated to be$108 billion per annum globally and will continue to rise [5]. Due to the considerable cost impact of HF on the healthcare system, it is necessary to optimize the disease management plan and carry out health economic assessment [6].

Health economic assessment plays an important role for making health decisions and optimizing health care resource allocation. It can help healthcare professionals and policy makers to select appropriate interventions for different patients and different health care setting. Cost utility analysis is one method of health economic assessment [7]. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) which combine the quantity of life and quality of life is an important indicator needed to carry out cost utility analysis. A measurement instrument based on health preferences can obtain the health utility value needed to calculate QALYs [8].

Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) is the most used instrument to evaluate the quality of life in patients with heart failure [9,10,11]. MLHFQ captures the symptom of HF and patients’ concerns, such as swelling, hospitalization, breathing, and so on. However, MLHFQ is not an instrument based on the measurement of health preferences, and the health utility value in patients with HF cannot be obtained. When we cannot obtain appropriate health utility data, mapping is regarded as a "second best" solution [12]. Mapping can estimate the relationship between the preference-based instrument and non-preference-based instrument by establishing statistical association. So mapping can transform the scale information of non-preference-based instrument into the health utility value based on preference-based instrument [13]. Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) pointed out: "when there is no health utility value data or data is improper, mapping can be considered from other health related quality of life data, thereby gaining the right health utility value" in its guide of health economics evaluation methods [14].

SF-6D, including SF-6Dv1 and SF-6Dv2, is a globally used instrument based on health preferences [15, 16]. It can help us obtain health utility value for cost utility analysis. To the author’s knowledge, there is no study about mapping algorithm from MLHFQ to SF-6Dv1or SF-6Dv2 currently. The aim of this study was to try and develop the mapping algorithm which can construct a transformation model from MLHFQ to SF-6Dv2 and generate the health utility value for cost utility analysis in cardiovascular diseases such as CHF. Besides saving time and cost, it also provides health utility value which strongly correlates with the disease.

Methods

Study design

The study was based on the previous prospective study (the cost-effectiveness analysis methodology study in the treatment of CHF with traditional Chinese medicine), and the details of clinical study design which were reported in other literatures [17]. 199 patients were enrolled in the study who were diagnosed with CHF. They were recruited from inpatient departments of three general hospitals in Beijing from September 2009 to December 2011. Four cases of them were not included in the analysis due to incomplete information. All eligible patients signed the written informed consent and satisfied with the New York Heart Association (NYHA) I to IV. Patients with mental illness, congenital heart disease or severe impairment of liver and kidney function were excluded. Pregnant patients, patients with allergies and patients with acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina pectoris within the last month were also excluded. All eligible patients were surveyed twice before and 2 weeks after the survey, and one case was lost due to failure to follow-up.

Instruments

Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire

MLHFQ is a specific instrument for self-assessment quality of life on patients with heart failure, with good reliability and validity [18]. MLHFQ contains 21 items with 0–5 Likert instrument. Scores range from 0 to 105, representing the best to worst quality of life. MLHFQ has two domains, the physical domain (8 items, score range 0–40) and the emotional domain (5 items, score range 0–25), with the remaining 8 items only been used to calculate the total score [19]. MLHFQ is widely used in various countries [20,21,22] and has been translated into Chinese language and verified [23].

SF-6Dv2

SF-6D is a health utility measurement instrument developed by Brazier [24] based on the Short Form-36 (SF-36). SF-6D instrument has two version, SF-6Dv1 and SF-6Dv2. SF-6Dv2 is an improved version of SF-6Dv1 with more distinct levels of health and clearer descriptions. SF-6Dv2 is derived from 10 items of SF-36v2, with a total of 6 dimensions, namely physical function (5 levels), role limitation (5 levels), social function (5 levels), pain (6 levels), mental health (5 levels) and vitality (5 levels), which can be used to describe 18,750 health states [25].

SF-6Dv2 can be used as a dependent or an independent instrument in three different ways. As dependent instrument, SF-6Dv2 can be combined with the full SF-36v2 (SF-6Dv2SF-36). As independent instrument, SF-6Dv2 can be used with only 10 items from the SF-36v2 (SF-6Dv2ind-10) or with 6 questions rephrased from 10 items of SF-36v2 (SF-6Dv2ind-6). The three ways have similar results, with a high degree of consistency [26].

In this study, SF-6Dv2 combined with the full SF-36v2 (SF-6Dv2SF-36) was used to obtain the health state of the CHF patients. The Chinese-specific value set for the SF-6Dv2 range from − 0.277 to 1 [27].

Training and testing sets

Using computer generated random numbers, the full sample (baseline and follow-up) were divided into two groups. 80% of the data (311 cases) were assigned to the training set with 20% (78 cases) of testing set. A tenfold cross-validation technique was employed to validate our models in training set. Goodness-of-fit of the models were evaluated by the average mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square error (RMSE) from tenfold cross-validation. The smaller MAE and RMSE are, the better goodness-of-fit will be. Then all the data of training set were used to build the best model possible. Finally, the model was tested with the testing set.

Statistical analysis

In the study, Shapiro–Wilk test and scatter chart were used to evaluate the normality of continuous variables, and spearman correlation and scatter plots were used to test the correlation between the MLHFQ score and the health utility value of SF-6Dv2. The SF-6Dv2 health utility value was taken as the dependent variable and the MLHFQ instrument information as the independent variable in the regression analysis. To detect the nonlinear relationship between the health utility value of SF-6Dv2 and the information of MLHFQ instrument, and to improve the prediction accuracy of the model, square terms and interaction terms were included in the models. Age and gender were included into the models to evaluate whether general demographic characteristics affected the relationship between SF-6Dv2 health utility value and MLHFQ instrument information. The specific models contained two aspects:

  • Model A Main effect (total MLHFQ score + total MLHFQ score2) + covariate (sex, age)

  • Model B Main effect (physical domain score + emotional domain score + remainder items score + physical domain score2 + emotional domain score2 + physical domain score * emotional domain score) + covariate (sex and age)

The models were estimated by ordinary least squares (OLS), Tobit model, robust MM estimator (MM) and censored least absolute deviations (CLAD). The relationship between the predicted and observed SF-6Dv2 values was examined by the Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC). The consistency of health state was assessed by Bland–Altman plot. Scatter plots and spearman correlation were also presented.

All statistical analyses were performed using STATA 15.1 software.

Results

Sample characteristics

A total of 195 patients with CHF participated in the study, one of them was lost from follow-up and 194 patients were followed up. The characteristics of the sample is shown in Table 1. The mean age of the study participants was 69 years, ranged from 27 to 88. The sex ratio was about the same. The cardiac function classification of NYHA was mainly grade II and III in the baseline sample, and mainly I and II in the follow-up sample. The mean values of SF-6Dv2 in baseline and follow-up samples were 0.449 (SD = 0.324) and 0.649 (SD = 0.172), respectively. The mean of MLHFQ in baseline and follow-up samples were 49.969 (SD = 26.497) and 33.227 (SD = 21.511), respectively. The health status of the patients improved after intervention. The differences in MLHFQ total score, physical and emotional scores and SF-6Dv2 are reported in Additional file 1: Table S1.

Table 1 Patient characteristics
Full size table

Distribution of MLHFQ and SF-6Dv2

By Shapiro–Wilk test, the total MLHFQ score and the SF-6Dv2 health utility values in the full samples were not normally distributed (P < 0.001). Figure 1 presents that the MLHFQ scores in different domains are negatively correlated with the health utility value of SF-6Dv2 in full sample. Spearman correlation results further verified the correlation. Correlation coefficients of total MLHFQ scores, physical domain scores, emotion domain scores and remainder items scores with health utility value of SF-6Dv2 were − 0.8187, − 0.7836, − 0.7637 and − 0.7192, respectively, all showing high negative correlation.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The correlation of MLHFQ scores with SF-6Dv2 utilities in full sample

Full size image

The correlation between dimensions of SF-6Dv2 and the MLHFQ are reported in Additional file 1: Table S2.

Goodness-of-fit results of training sets

Table 2 presents the goodness-of-fit results of different models with four statistical algorithms from tenfold cross-validation. The details can be seen in Additional file 1: Tables S3 and S4. The MAE range of Model A was 0.121178–0.125245 and RMSE range was 0.162079–0.176927. The range of MAE was 0.120612–0.126302 and RMSE varied from 0.160373 to 0.172766 for Model B. The OLS Model B was the best mapping model with the lowest MAE and the RMSE (MAE = 0.120612, RMSE = 0.160373). Table 3 shows the regression coefficients from OLS Model B with the whole data of training set. Remainder items and physical * emotion were significant variables in OLS Model B.

Table 2 Fitting results from tenfold cross-validation
Full size table
Table 3 Regression coefficient and standard error of the optimal mapping model
Full size table

Testing results

As shown in Fig. 2, the observed and predicted values of SF-6Dv2 are positively correlated with OLS Model B in the testing set. Spearman correlation test result showed that the predicted value was highly correlated with the observed value (r = 0.7732). The X axis of the Bland–Altman plots shows the average of the predicted and observes SF-6Dv2 value, the Y axis is the distribution of differences between the predicted and observed SF-6Dv2 value. The Bland–Altman plots shows that there is the better fitting effective in the better health states, and the model will overvalue the SF-6Dv2 utility in poor health states (Fig. 3). The specific predicted results are shown in Table 4. Observed 25th, 50th and 75th percentile were 0.436, 0.600 and 0.7110 while predicted values were 0.464, 0.619 and 0.7600, the prediction errors fell in a range of 0.01–0.05. But there was a major prediction error for observed minimum value.

Fig. 2
figure 2

The observed versus predicted SF-6Dv2 mapped from the optimal mapping model

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Bland and Altman plot of differences between the observed and the predicted SF-6Dv2 value of OLS Model B

Full size image
Table 4 Fitting results of testing set with the optimal mapping model
Full size table

Discussion

For the measurement of health utility of patients with CHF, EQ-5D is currently the most commonly used measuring instrument [28,29,30]. SF-6Dv1 was developed later than EQ-5D, and was expanded along with the widely use of SF-36 in the world. Now the application of SF-6Dv1in the world is becoming more widely acceptable [16, 31, 32], and is the one of most widely used instrument in economic evaluation [33]. EQ-5D-5L can describe up to 3125 health states [34] with obvious ceiling effect, while SF-6Dv1can describe more than 18,000 health states with higher sensitivity and lower upper limit effect than EQ-5D-5L [31, 35]. SF-6Dv1 also has a certain floor effect [6] and the sensitivity of SF-6Dv1 will decrease when the health state deteriorates. Hence professors [36] proposed that SF-6Dv1 may play an import role for conditions which are mild, such as relatively stable heart failure patients. SF-6Dv2 was developed in 2020 considering the criticisms of SF-6Dv1, and it improved the validity of psychometric tests and increased the ability to measure change in health status over time [25]. In this study, the mapping algorithms were adopted to transform the information of MLHFQ instrument into the health utility value of SF-6Dv2, which could reduce the burden of patients and obtain the health utility data related to disease, thus providing richer data for health economic evaluation.

In authors’ knowledge, there are two international studies with MLHFQ as the starting instrument [37, 38], EQ-5D-5L and the assessment of quality of life 8D (AQOL-8D) as the mapping instrument respectively, and the research samples were all from Australia. So far, there has been no study on MLHFQ as the starting instrument for Chinese population. In this study, the training set constructed eight alternative models (two models and four statistical algorithms) with tenfold cross-validation technique. According to the MAE and RMSE, OLS Model B was finally selected as the best mapping model, which was consistent with the best mapping algorithm determined by Catchpool et al. [37] (MLHFQ mapping to AQOL-8D). Yousefi et al. [39] mapped QLQ-C30 onto SF-6Dv2 using the data from colorectal and breast cancer patients in a developing country, the best mapping algorithm was also OLS.

In this study, the scoring range of MLHFQ in baseline sample and follow-up sample almost covered the information of the MLHFQ instrument. The cardiac function classification of NYHA in the full sample (baseline and follow-up) had a nice distribution. These indicated that the sample is a good representation for CHF. There was a high negative correlation between the total MLHFQ score and the observed utility of SF-6Dv2 in the full smaple (r = − 0.8187), and the correlation coefficient was slightly lower than that of Catchpool et al. [37] (r = − 0.825), but higher than that of Kularatna et al. [38] (r = − 0.580). The physical domain scores, emotion domain scores and remainder items scores of MLHFQ also highly correlated with SF-6Dv2 in the full sample. These high correlation indicated that the information of MLHFQ could convert to SF-6Dv2. The MAE and RMSE were lower than the mapping study about the MLHFQ mapped to EQ-5D-5L [38], and similar to the study about MLHFQ mapped to AQOL-8D [37]. The predicted utility values of the optimal models established were highly correlated with the observed values, indicating that the model constructed in this study had a good predictive efficiency and could be applied to cost utility analysis of cardiovascular diseases such as CHF in China.

There was a better goodness of fit when the health state was good according to the Bland–Altman plots and scatter plots. When the health state was deteriorated, the predicted health utility values were not stable and were often overestimated. Similar results can be seen in the study mapped QLQ-C30 ontoSF-6Dv2 [39]. So when the value of SF-6Dv2 increased, the fitting effect were better. Therefore, the application of mapping algorithms from MLHFQ to SF-6Dv2 introduced in this study may be more suitable for the CHF patients with better health state. For CHF patients with worse health state, the researchers should be cautious to obtain health utility value by the OLS algorithm.

This study was not without its limitations. Firstly, the sample size of the study is not big. In order to reduce the impact of this limitation, tenfold cross-validation technique was employed. Although similar sample size can be conducted in the other mapping studies [36, 37]. Bigger sample size is still recommended in future mapping study, and further verify the mapping algorithm which were used in this study. Secondly, although our sample included various stage CHF patients, there were less NYHA I and IV patients. Therefore, the results should be used cautiously for NYHA I and IV patients.

Conclusion

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first mapping algorithm which convert MLHFQ to SF-6Dv2. The results of this study suggested that MLHFQ can be mapped to SF-6Dv2, and the information of MLHFQ can be used to obtain appropriate health utility values for the economic evaluation of health management strategies and therapeutic interventions for CHF or other related cardiovascular diseases.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used during the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

MLHFQ:

Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire

OLS:

Ordinary least square

MM:

Robust MM estimator

CLAD:

Censored least absolute deviations

MAE:

Mean absolute error

RMSE:

Root mean square error

ICC:

Intraclass Correlation Coefficients

HF:

Heart failure

QALYs:

Quality adjusted life years

NICE:

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

CHF:

Chronic heart failure

NYHA:

New York Heart Association

SF-36:

Short Form-36

Abs diff:

The absolute value of the difference between predicted utility and observed utility

AQOL-8D:

Assessment of quality of life 8D

References

  1. Lund LH, Savarese G. Global public health burden of heart failure. Card Fail Rev. 2017;03(01):7–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ambrosy AP, Fonarow GC, Butler J, Chioncel O, Greene SJ, Vaduganathan M, Nodari S, Lam CSP, Sato N, Shah AN, Gheorghiade M. The global health and economic burden of hospitalizations for heart failure: lessons learned from hospitalized heart failure registries. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(12):1123–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hao G, Wang X, Chen Z, Zhang L, Zhang Y, Wei B, Zheng C, Kang Y, Jiang L, Zhu Z, Zhang J, Wang Z, Gao R, China Hypertension Survey, I. Prevalence of heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction in China: the China Hypertension Survey, 2012–2015. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019;21(11):1329–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Shafie AA, Tan YP, Ng CH. Systematic review of economic burden of heart failure. Heart Fail Rev. 2018;23(1):131–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cook C, Cole G, Asaria P, Jabbour R, Francis DP. The annual global economic burden of heart failure. Int J Cardiol. 2014;171(3):368–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Whitehurst DG, Bryan S, Lewis M. Systematic review and empirical comparison of contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D group mean scores. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31(6):E34-44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Higgins AM, Harris AH. Health economic methods: cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and cost-benefit evaluations. Crit Care Clin. 2012;28(1):11–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wailoo AJ, Hernandez-Alava M, Manca A, Mejia A, Ray J, Crawford B, Botteman M, Busschbach J. Mapping to estimate health-state utility from non-preference-based outcome measures: an ISPOR Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force Report. Value Health. 2017;20(1):18–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Yang P, He J. Chinese herbal medicines and conventional chronic heart failure treatment for the management of chronic heart failure complicated with depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Evid Based Complement Altern Med. 2020;2020:8627928.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hu Y, Jiang J, Xu L, Wang C, Wang P, Yang B, Tao M. Symptom clusters and quality of life among patients with chronic heart failure: a cross-sectional study. Jpn J Nurs Sci. 2021;18(1):e12366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wu L, Zhang Q, Shu Q, Zhang R, Meng Y. Sex-dependent changes in physical, mental, and quality of life outcomes in metoprolol-treated Chinese chronic heart failure patients. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(50):e18331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gray AM, Rivero-Arias O, Clarke PM. Estimating the association between SF-12 responses and EQ-5D utility values by response mapping. Med Decis Mak. 2006;26(1):18–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Brazier JE, Yang Y, Tsuchiya A, Rowen DL. A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur J Health Econ. 2010;11(2):215–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brazier J, Rowen D, Cairns J, Lloyd A, Stolk E, Garrett Z. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 11: alternatives to EQ-5D for generating health state utility values. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2012. p. 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Craig BM, Pickard AS, Stolk E, Brazier JE. US valuation of the SF-6D. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(6):793–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ferreira PL, Ferreira LN, Pereira LN. SF-6D Portuguese population norms. Eur J Health Econ. 2015;16(3):235–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhu YB, Origasa H, Luo XX, Wang YY, Di J, Lin L. Responsiveness of three subjective report outcome measures for chronic heart failure. Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Bao. 2012;10(12):1375–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rector TS, Cohn J. Assessment of patient outcome with the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire—reliability and validity during a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pimobendan. Pimobendan Multicenter Research Group. Am Heart J. 1992;124(4):1017–25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bilbao A, Escobar A, Garcia-Perez L, Navarro G, Quiros R. The Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire: comparison of different factor structures. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Brokalaki H, Patelarou E, Giakoumidakis K, Kollia Z, Fotos NV, Vivilaki V, Brokalaki E, Chatzistamatiou E, Kallikazaros IE. Translation and validation of the Greek “Minnesota Living with Heart Failure” questionnaire. Hellenic J Cardiol. 2015;56(1):10–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Carvalho VO, Guimaraes GV, Carrara D, Bacal F, Bocchi EA. Validation of the Portuguese version of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2009;93(1):39–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Garin O, Soriano N, Ribera A, Ferrer M, Pont A, Alonso J, Permanyer G, Grupo ICQ. Validation of the Spanish version of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2008;61(3):251–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhu Y, Du J, Lin L, Zheqi X, Hediki Q, Zheng J, He L, Li C, Fang F, Luo X. The translating, editing and testing of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire of Chinese version. Chin J Behav Med Brain Sci. 2010;19(2):178–80.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Brazier JE, Mulhern BJ, Bjorner JB, Gandek B, Rowen D, Alonso J, Vilagut G, Ware JE, SF-6Dv2 International Project Group. Developing a new version of the SF-6D Health State Classification System from the SF-36v2: SF-6Dv2. Med Care. 2020;58(6):557–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Poder TG, Fauteux V, He J, Brazier JE. Consistency between three different ways of administering the Short Form 6 DIMENSION Version 2. Value Health. 2019;22(7):837–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wu J, Xie S, He X, Chen G, Bai G, Feng D, Hu M, Jiang J, Wang X, Wu H, Wu Q, Brazier JE. Valuation of SF-6Dv2 health states in China using time trade-off and discrete-choice experiment with a duration dimension. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021;39(5):521–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Vestergaard AS, Hansen L, Sørensen SS, Jensen MB, Ehlers LH. Is telehealthcare for heart failure patients cost-effective? An economic evaluation alongside the Danish TeleCare North heart failure trial. BMJ Open. 2020;10(1):e031670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jackson JDS, Cotton SE, Wirta SB, Proenca CC, Zhang ML, Lahoz R, Calado FJ. Burden of heart failure on patients from China: results from a cross-sectional survey. Drug Des Dev Ther. 2018;12:1659–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hansson E, Ekman I, Swedberg K, Wolf A, Dudas K, Ehlers L, Olsson LE. Person-centred care for patients with chronic heart failure—a cost-utility analysis. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2016;15(4):276–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sayah FA, Qiu W, Xie F, Johnson JA. Comparative performance of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D index scores in adults with type 2 diabetes. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(8):2057–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kharroubi SA, Beyh Y, Harake MDE, Dawoud D, Rowen D, Brazier J. Examining the feasibility and acceptability of valuing the Arabic version of SF-6D in a Lebanese population. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(3):1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wisloff T, Hagen G, Hamidi V, Movik E, Klemp M, Olsen JA. Estimating QALY gains in applied studies: a review of cost-utility analyses published in 2010. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(4):367–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Foundation, E. R. EQ-5D-5L user guide, version 3.0, 2019. Available from https://euroqol.org/publications/user-guides.

  35. Wu J, Han Y, Zhao FL, Zhou J, Chen Z, Sun H. Validation and comparison of EuroQoL-5 dimension (EQ-5D) and Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) among stable angina patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Brazier JE, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004;42(9):851–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Catchpool M, Ramchand J, Hare DL, Martyn M, Goranitis I. Mapping the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) onto the Assessment of Quality of Life 8D (AQoL-8D) utility scores. Qual Life Res. 2020;29(10):2815–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kularatna S, Senanayake S, Chen G, Parsonage W. Mapping the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) to EQ-5D-5L in patients with heart failure. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Yousefi M, Nahvijou A, Sari AA, Ameri H. Mapping QLQ-C30 onto EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D-V2 in patients with colorectal and breast cancer from a developing country. Value Health Reg Issues. 2021;24:57–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the support from the participating hospitals and the cooperation of all the patients involved.

Funding

This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 30873256). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or reparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, 102488, China

    Jianni Cong, Qian Zhang, Tan Ooh Chye & Xiaoying Lv

  2. School of Management, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, 102488, China

    Yanbo Zhu, Wenqiong Liu, Xinrui Wu, Fanghui Ma, Xinyuan Zhao, Yuqiong Li & Liqun Long

  3. Cardiology Department of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, 100029, China

    Jinhang Du

  4. Department of Personnel, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, 100029, China

    Lin Lin

  5. University of Paris Saclay, 91190, Saint-Aubin, France

    Yuan He

Authors
  1. Jianni Cong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yanbo Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jinhang Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lin Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yuan He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Qian Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tan Ooh Chye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Xiaoying Lv
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Wenqiong Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Xinrui Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Fanghui Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Xinyuan Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Yuqiong Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Liqun Long
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YZ came up with the study concept and design; YZ organized data collection, had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis; JC and YZ performed the analyses and interpretation of data and drafted the manuscript; JC, YZ, JD, LL, YH, QZ, TOC, XL, WL, XW, FM, XZ, YL, LL performed critical revisions of the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yanbo Zhu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Written, informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from all participants. All patients were asking for their voluntary participation.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declared they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1. Supplemental data.

Mapping the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) to SF-6Dv2 in Chinese patients with heart failure.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cong, J., Zhu, Y., Du, J. et al. Mapping the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) to SF-6Dv2 in Chinese patients with heart failure. Health Qual Life Outcomes 20, 98 (2022). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12955-022-02004-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12955-022-02004-x

Keywords

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

ISSN: 1477-7525

Contact us