Comparing community-preference-based and direct standard gamble utility scores: Evidence from elective total hip arthroplasty

被引:16
作者
Feeny, D [1 ]
Blanchard, C
Mahon, JL
Bourne, R
Rorabeck, C
Stitt, L
Webster-Bogaert, S
机构
[1] Univ Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2M7, Canada
[2] Amer Canc Soc, Atlanta, GA 30329 USA
[3] Univ Western Ontario, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, London, ON N6A 5A5, Canada
关键词
utilities; standard gamble; health utilities index; multi-attribute utility functions; hip arthroplasty; preferences; agreement;
D O I
10.1017/S0266462303000321
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objectives: Do utility scores based on patient preferences and scores based on community preferences agree? The purpose is to assess agreement between directly measured standard gamble (SG) utility scores and utility scores from the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2) and Mark 3 (HUI3) systems. Methods: Patients were assessed repeatedly throughout the process of waiting to see a surgeon, waiting for surgery, and recovery after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Group mean scores are compared using paired t-tests. Agreement is assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: The mean SG, HUI2, and HUI3 (SD) scores at assessment 1 are 0.62 (0.31), 0.62 (0.19), and 0.52 (0.21); n = 103. At assessment 2, the means are 0.67 (0.30), 0.68 (0.30), and 0.58 (0.22); n = 84. There are no statistically significant differences between group mean SG and HUI2 scores. Mean SG and HUI3 scores are significantly different. ICCs are low. Conclusions: At the mean level for the group, SG and HUI2 scores match closely. At the individual level, agreement is poor. HUI2 scores were greater than HUI3 scores. HUI2 and HUI3 are appropriate for group level analyses relying on community preferences but are not a good substitute for directly measured utility scores at the individual level.
引用
收藏
页码:362 / 372
页数:11
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]
Assessment of patient preferences among men with prostate cancer [J].
Albertsen, PC ;
Nease, RF ;
Potosky, AL .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1998, 159 (01) :158-163
[2]
Canadian Co-ordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment , 1997, GUID EC EV PHARM CAN
[3]
REPRODUCIBILITY AND RESPONSIVENESS OF HEALTH-STATUS MEASURES - STATISTICS AND STRATEGIES FOR EVALUATION [J].
DEYO, RA ;
DIEHR, P ;
PATRICK, DL .
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1991, 12 (04) :S142-S158
[4]
Essink-Bot M L, 1993, Health Econ, V2, P237, DOI 10.1002/hec.4730020307
[5]
Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system [J].
Feeny, D ;
Furlong, W ;
Torrance, GW ;
Goldsmith, CH ;
Zhu, ZL ;
DePauw, S ;
Denton, M ;
Boyle, M .
MEDICAL CARE, 2002, 40 (02) :113-128
[6]
A COMPREHENSIVE MULTIATTRIBUTE SYSTEM FOR CLASSIFYING THE HEALTH-STATUS OF SURVIVORS OF CHILDHOOD-CANCER [J].
FEENY, D ;
FURLONG, W ;
BARR, RD ;
TORRANCE, GW ;
ROSENBAUM, P ;
WEITZMAN, S .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 1992, 10 (06) :923-928
[7]
Feeny D., 1996, QUALITY LIFE PHARMAC, P239
[8]
FURLONG W, 1990, 909 MCMAST U CTR HLT
[9]
FURLONG W, 9811 MCMAST U CTR HL
[10]
The Health Utilities Index (HUI®) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies [J].
Furlong, WJ ;
Feeny, DH ;
Torrance, GW ;
Barr, RD .
ANNALS OF MEDICINE, 2001, 33 (05) :375-384