Comparing Short Form 6D, standard gamble, and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 utility scores: Results from total hip arthroplasty patients

被引:63
作者
Feeny, D
Wu, LL
Eng, K
机构
[1] Inst Hlth Econ, Edmonton, AB T5J 3N4, Canada
[2] Univ Alberta, Fac Pharm & Pharmaceut Sci, Edmonton, AB T6G 2N8, Canada
[3] Univ Alberta, Dept Med, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[4] Hlth Utilit Inc, Dundas, ON, Canada
关键词
HUI; responsiveness; SF-6D; standard gamble; utility scores;
D O I
10.1007/s11136-004-6189-2
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: The objectives are to compare SF-6D, standard gamble (SG), and Health Utilities Index (HUI) utility scores, compare change scores, and compare responsiveness. Methods: A cohort of osteoarthritis patients referred for total hip arthroplasty (THA) were evaluated at the time of referral and followed until 3 months after THA. Patients were assessed using the SF-36, HUI2, HUI3, and the SG. Agreement is assessed using the intra-class correlation (ICC). Responsiveness is assessed using effect size, standardized response mean, and paired t-test. Results: Data was available for 86 patients at baseline and for 63 at both pre- and post-surgery. At baseline mean SF-6D (0.61), SG (0.62), and HUI2 ( 0.62) scores were similar; the mean HUI3 score (0.52) was lower. Standard deviations were 0.10, 0.32, 0.19, and 0.22. At baseline, agreement between SF-6D and SG scores was 0.13, agreement between SF-6D and HUI2 was 0.47, and agreement between SF-6D and HUI3 was 0.28. Agreement at pre- and post-surgery was similar. The change in scores between post-and pre- surgery was 0.10 for SF-6D, 0.16 for SG, 0.22 for HUI2, and 0.23 for HUI3. Effect sizes were 1.10 for HUI2, 1.08 for HUI3, 1.06 for SF-6D, and 0.48 for the SG. Conclusions: Agreement between SG scores and SF-6D and HUI scores was low. The estimate of change in utility associated with THA was lowest for SF-6D. Additional longitudinal studies to compare utility measures appear to be warranted.
引用
收藏
页码:1659 / 1670
页数:12
相关论文
共 38 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1996, Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials
[2]   Is the Health Utilities Index valid in total hip arthroplasty patients? [J].
Blanchard, C ;
Feeny, D ;
Mahon, JRL ;
Bourne, R ;
Rorabeck, C ;
Stitt, L ;
Webster-Bogaert, S .
QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2004, 13 (02) :339-348
[3]   Is the Health Utilities Index responsive in total hip arthroplasty patients? [J].
Blanchard, C ;
Feeny, D ;
Mahon, JL ;
Bourne, R ;
Rorabeck, C ;
Stitt, L ;
Webster-Bogaert, S .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2003, 56 (11) :1046-1054
[4]   Comparison of preference-based utilities of the Short-Form 36 Health Survey and Health Utilities Index before and after treatment of patients with intermittent claudication [J].
Bosch, JL ;
Halpern, E ;
Gazelle, GS .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2002, 22 (05) :403-409
[5]   The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36 [J].
Brazier, J ;
Roberts, J ;
Deverill, M .
JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2002, 21 (02) :271-292
[6]   Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments [J].
Conner-Spady, B ;
Suarez-Almazor, ME .
MEDICAL CARE, 2003, 41 (07) :791-801
[7]   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
[8]   Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states [J].
Dolan, P .
MEDICAL CARE, 1997, 35 (11) :1095-1108
[9]   Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies [J].
Drummond, M .
ANNALS OF MEDICINE, 2001, 33 (05) :344-349
[10]  
Feeny D, 2004, QUAL LIFE RES, V13, P15, DOI 10.1023/B:QURE.0000015307.33811.2d