Relative efficiency of the EQ-5D, HUI2, and HUI3 index scores in measuring health burden of chronic medical conditions in a population health survey in the united states

Medical Care

Volumn 47, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 53-60

  Luo, Nan ^a   Johnson, Jeffrey A ^b   Shaw, James W ^c   PharmD, ^a,b,c,d   Coons, Stephen Joel ^d  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

Health preference; Health status; Health utility; Health related quality of life

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CHRONIC DISEASE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; POPULATION RESEARCH; QUALITY OF LIFE; UNITED STATES;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AFRICAN AMERICANS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CHRONIC DISEASE; COST OF ILLNESS; DEPRESSION; EFFICIENCY; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HISPANIC AMERICANS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOBILITY LIMITATION; PAIN; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; SELF CARE; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 58449117378     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31817d92f8     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Gold MR, Patrick DL, Torrance DG, et al. Identifying and valuing outcomes. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al, eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996:82-134.
2. Drummond MF, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL, et al. Cost-utility analysis. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1997:139-204.
3. Brooks R. EuroQo1: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37: 53-72.
4. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQo1 Group. Ann Med. 2001;33:337-343.
5. Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance G. The Health Utilities Index: an update. Quality of Life Newsletter. 1999;22:8-9.
6. Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. The Health Utilities Index (HUI®): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:54.
7. Cohen SB. Design strategies and innovations in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Med Care. 2003;41:III5-III12.
8. Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F, eds. The Measurement and Valuation of Health Status Using EQ-5D: A European Perspective. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003.
9. National Population Health Survey [Statistics Canada web site]. Available at: http://www.statcan.ca/english/concepts/nphs. Accessed June 7, 2007.
10. 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;33:358-370.
11. Macran S, Weatherly H, Kind P. Measuring population health: a comparison of three generic health status measures. Med Care. 2003;41:218-231.
12. Lubetkin EI, Gold MR. Areas of decrement in health-related quality of life (HRQL): comparing the SF-12, EQ-5D, and HUI 3. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:1059-1067.
13. 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;30:2268-2274.
14. Marra CA, Esdaile JM, Guh D, et al. A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care. 2004;42:1125-1131.
15. Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Feeny DH. Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:207-219.
16. Belanger A, Berthelot JM, Guimond E, et al. A head-to-head comparison of two generic health status measures in the household population: McMaster Health Utilities Index (mark 3) and the EQ-5D. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2000.
17. Janssen MF, Birnie E, Bonsel GJ. Evaluating the discriminatory power of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in a US general population survey using Shannon's indices. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:895-904.
18. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: Development and testing of the Dl valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43:203-220.
19. Miller W. The significance of using US-Valued EQ-5D health states for comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies in US populations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:229-230.
20. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQo1 health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095-1108.
21. Badia X, Roset M, Herdman M, et al. A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:7-16.
22. Tsuchiya A, Ikeda S, Ikegami N, et al. Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ. 2002;11:341-353.
23. Lamers LM, McDonnell J, Stalmeier PF, et al. The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Econ. 2006;15:1121-1132.
24. Tórrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, et al. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care. 1996;34:702-722.
25. 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;40:113-128.
26. Translation process [The EuroQol Group web site]. Available at: http://www.euroqol.org. Accessed June 7, 2007.
27. Questionnaire development, translations and support [Health Utilities Inc. web site]. Available at: http://www.healthutilities.com. Accessed June 7, 2007.
28. Fayers PM, Machin D. Developing and testing questionnaires. In: Quality of Life: Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2000:43:-71.
29. Vickrey BG, Hays RD, Genovese BJ, et al. Comparison of a generic to disease-targeted health-related quality-of-life measures for multiple sclerosis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:557-569.
30. Razavi D, Gandek B. Testing Dutch and French translations of the SF-36 Health Survey among Belgian angina patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51:975-981.
31. Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan V. Preference-based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Decis Making. 2006;26:410-420.
32. Mo F, Choi BC, Li FC, et al. Using Health Utility Index (HUI) for measuring the impact on health-related quality of life (HRQL) among individuals with chronic diseases. ScientificWorld Journal. 2004;4:746-757.
33. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, et al. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004;13:873-884.
34. van Stel HF, Buskens E. Comparison of the SF-6D and the EQ-5D in patients with coronary heart disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:20.
35. Xie F, Li SC, Luo N, et al. A comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in multiethnic Asian patients with knee osteoarthritis in Singapore. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57:1043-1049.
36. Brazier J, Jones N, Kind P. Testing the validity of the Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Qual Life Res. 1993;2:169-180.
37. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:1523-1532.
38. Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec JA, et al. A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:1571-1582.