Assessing differences in utility scores: A comparison of four widely used preference-based instruments

Value in Health

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 256-265

  Wee, Hwee Lin ^a,b   Machin, David ^c,d   Loke, Wai Chiong ^e   Li, Shu Chuen ^b   Cheung, Yin Bun ^f   Luo, Nan ^b   Feeny, David ^g,h   Fong, Kok Yong ^a,b   Thumboo, Julian ^a,b  

^a SINGAPORE GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Singapore)

^b NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

^c DIVISION OF MEDICAL ONCOLOGY   (Singapore)

^d Clinical Trials and Epidemiology Research Unit   (Singapore)

^e SINGHEALTH POLYCLINICS   (Singapore)

^f LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^g Health Utilities Incorporated   (Canada)

^h CENTER FOR HEALTH RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Asia; Comparative study; Cost benefit; Decision trees; Quality adjusted life year

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CHINESE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; FAMILY FUNCTIONING; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; INDIAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALAYSIA; MALE; MARRIAGE; MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; SCORING SYSTEM; SINGAPORE; STANDARD; UTILITIES INDEX MARK 2; UTILITIES INDEX MARK 3;

EID: 34447547686     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00174.x     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Neumann PJ, Greenberg D, Olchanski NV, et al. Growth and quality of the cost-utility literature, 1976-2001. Value Health 2005 8 : 3 9.
2. Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 1996 276 : 1339 41.
3. Berger ML, Bingefors K, Hedblom EC, et al., eds. Health Care Cost, Quality, and Outcomes: ISPOR Book of Terms. Lawrenceville, NJ : ISPOR, 2003.
4. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997 35 : 1095 108.
5. Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G. The Health Utilities Index (HUI®): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003 1 : 54.
6. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002 21 : 271 92.
7. Tengs TO, Lin TH. A meta-analysis of utility estimates for HIV/AIDS. Med Decis Making 2002 22 : 475 81.
8. Marra CA, Esdaile JM, Guh D, et al. A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care 2004 42 : 1125 31.
9. Feeny D, Wu L, Eng K. Comparing short form 6D, standard gamble, and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 utility scores: results from total hip arthroplasty patients. Qual Life Res 2004 13 : 1659 70.
10. Barton GR, Bankart J, Davis AC. A comparison of the quality of life of hearing-impaired people as estimated by three different utility measures. Int J Audiol 2005 44 : 157 63.
11. Longworth L, Bryan S. An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Health Econ 2003 12 : 1061 7.
12. Kopec JA, Willison KD. A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003 56 : 317 25.
13. Schackman BR, Gold HT, Stone PW, Neumann PJ. How often do sensitivity analyses for economic parameters change cost-utility analysis conclusions? Pharmacoeconomics 2004 22 : 293 300.
14. Birditt KS, Fingerman KL. Age and gender differences in adults' descriptions of emotional reactions to interpersonal problems. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2003 58 : 237 45.
15. Carstensen LL, Pasupathi M, Mayr U, Nesselroade JR. Emotional experience in everyday life across the adult life span. J Pers Soc Psychol 2000 79 : 644 55.
16. Gross JJ, Carstensen LL, Pasupathi M, et al. Emotion aging: experience, expression, control. Psychol Aging 1997 12 : 590 9.
17. Bosch JL, Hunink MG. Comparison of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D in patients treated for intermittent claudication. Qual Life Res 2000 9 : 591 601.
18. Hatoum HT, Brazier JE, Akhras KS. Comparison of the HUI3 with the SF-36 preference based SF-6D in a clinical trial setting. Value Health 2004 7 : 602 9.
19. Luo N, Chew LH, Fong KY, et al. A comparison of the EuroQol-5D and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 in patients with rheumatic disease. J Rheumatol 2003 30 : 2268 74.
20. Wee HL, Cheung YB, Fong KY, et al. Are English- and Chinese-language versions of the SF-6D equivalent? A comparison from a population-based study. Clin Ther 2004 26 : 1137 48.
21. Wee HL, Loke WC, Li SC, et al. Cross cultural adaptation and construct validity of the Singapore, Malay and Tamil versions of the EQ-5D. Annals Acad Medicine Singapore (in press).
22. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care 2005 43 : 203 20.
23. Feeny D, Furlong W, Barr RD, et al. A comprehensive multiattribute system for classifying the health status of survivors of childhood cancer. J Clin Oncol 1992 10 : 923 8.
24. Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care 2002 40 : 113 28.
25. Thumboo J, Fong KY, Chan SP, et al. Validation of the medical outcomes study family and marital functioning measures in SLE patients in Singapore. Lupus 1999 8 : 514 20.
26. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986 1 : 307 10.
27. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ 2004 13 : 873 84.
28. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003 1 : 4.
29. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ 1992 146 : 473 81.
30. Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Babu AN, et al. A comparison of clinically important differences in health-related quality of life for patients with chronic lung disease, asthma, or heart disease. Health Serv Res 2005 40 : 577 91.
31. Lenert L, Kaplan RM. Validity and interpretation of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life. Med Care 2000 38 (Suppl. S138 50.
32. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day NA. A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann Med 2001 33 : 358 70.
33. Kopec JA, Williams JI, To T, Austin PC. Cross-cultural comparisons of health status in Canada using the Health Utilities Index. Ethn Health 2001 6 : 41 50.
34. Wee HL, Cheung YB, Fong KYN, et al. Are English and Chinese SF-6D versions equivalent? A comparison from a population-based study. Clin Ther 2004 26 : 1137 48.