Article

The Health Utilities Index (HUI<sup>®</sup>): concepts, measurement properties and applications

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 01/2003;
Source: DOAJ

ABSTRACT Abstract

This is a review of the Health Utilities Index (HUI®) multi-attribute health-status classification systems, and single- and multi-attribute utility scoring systems. HUI refers to both HUI Mark 2 (HUI2) and HUI Mark 3 (HUI3) instruments. The classification systems provide compact but comprehensive frameworks within which to describe health status. The multi-attribute utility functions provide all the information required to calculate single-summary scores of health-related quality of life (HRQL) for each health state defined by the classification systems. The use of HUI in clinical studies for a wide variety of conditions in a large number of countries is illustrated. HUI provides comprehensive, reliable, responsive and valid measures of health status and HRQL for subjects in clinical studies. Utility scores of overall HRQL for patients are also used in cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses. Population norm data are available from numerous large general population surveys. The widespread use of HUI facilitates the interpretation of results and permits comparisons of disease and treatment outcomes, and comparisons of long-term sequelae at the local, national and international levels.

0 0
 · 
0 Bookmarks
 · 
24 Views
  • Source
    Article: Mobility of Vulnerable Elders (MOVE): study protocol to evaluate the implementation and outcomes of a mobility intervention in long-term care facilities.
    Susan E Slaughter, Carole A Estabrooks, C Allyson Jones, Adrian S Wagg
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Almost 90% of residents living in long-term care facilities have limited mobility which is associated with a loss of ability in activities of daily living, falls, increased risk of serious medical problems such as pressure ulcers, incontinence and a significant decline in health-related quality of life. For health workers caring for residents it may also increase the risk of injury. The effectiveness of rehabilitation to facilitate mobility has been studied with dedicated research assistants or extensively trained staff caregivers; however, few investigators have examined the effectiveness of techniques to encourage mobility by usual caregivers in long-term care facilities. This longitudinal, quasi-experimental study is designed to demonstrate the effect of the sit-to-stand activity carried out by residents in the context of daily care with health care aides. In three intervention facilities health care aides will prompt residents to repeat the sit-to-stand action on two separate occasions during each day and each evening shift as part of daily care routines. In three control facilities residents will receive usual care. Intervention and control facilities are matched on the ownership model (public, private for-profit, voluntary not-for-profit) and facility size. The dose of the mobility intervention is assessed through the use of daily documentation flowsheets in the health record. Resident outcome measures include: 1) the 30-second sit-to-stand test; 2) the Functional Independence Measure; 3) the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and 3; and, 4) the Quality of Life - Alzheimer's Disease. There are several compelling reasons for this study: the widespread prevalence of limited mobility in this population; the rapid decline in mobility after admission to a long-term care facility; the importance of mobility to quality of life; the increased time (and therefore cost) required to care for residents with limited mobility; and, the increased risk of injury for health workers caring for residents who are unable to stand. The importance of these issues is magnified when considering the increasing number of people living in long-term care facilities and an aging population. This clinical trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (trial registration number: NCT01474616).
    BMC Geriatrics 12/2011; 11:84. · 2.34 Impact Factor
  • Article: Comparative responsiveness of the EuroQol-5D and Short Form 6D to improvement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tumor necrosis factor blockers: results of the Dutch Rheumatoid Arthritis Monitoring registry.
    Laurien Buitinga, Louise M A Braakman-Jansen, Erik Taal, Wietske Kievit, Henk Visser, Piet L C M van Riel, Mart A F J van de Laar
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: For cost-utility analyses of health technologies, utilities are commonly measured with the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) or the Short Form 6D (SF-6D). Although most studies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) found the SF-6D to be more responsive than the EQ-5D, evidence is not convincing. The aim of this study was to compare the responsiveness of the EQ-5D and SF-6D to improvement in RA patients treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers. Data from 278 RA patients included in the Dutch Rheumatoid Arthritis Monitoring registry were used. Internal responsiveness over 1 year was evaluated by using standardized response means (SRMs). External responsiveness was evaluated by using receiver operating characteristic curves based on perceived health change (self-reported health transition item Short Form 36) and change in disease activity (European League Against Rheumatism response criteria based on the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints). The scores of the EQ-5D and SF-6D changed moderately over 1 year (SRMs 0.50 and 0.67, respectively). The SF-6D was significantly more responsive to treatment than the EQ-5D. The EQ-5D and SF-6D were moderately able to correctly classify patients according to health transition (areas under the curve [AUCs] 0.67 and 0.72, respectively) and change in disease activity (AUCs 0.71 and 0.65, respectively). The EQ-5D and SF-6D were only moderately responsive to improvement in RA patients treated with TNF blockers. Overall, the SF-6D was more responsive than the EQ-5D.
    Arthritis care & research. 01/2012; 64(6):826-32.
  • Source
    Article: Comparison of three societally derived health-state classification values among older African Americans with depressive symptoms.
    Eric Jutkowitz, Laura Pizzi, Edward Hess, Dong-Churl Suh, Laura N Gitlin
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To compare societal values across three health-state classification systems in older African Americans with depression and to describe the association of these instruments to depression severity. METHODS: We summarized baseline values for EQ-5D (US weights) and HUI2/3 (Canadian weights) and their subscales for 118 older African American participants enrolled in a randomized depression treatment trial and calculated correlations between the different instruments. We evaluated ceiling and floor effects for each instrument by comparing the proportion at the highest and lowest possible score for each tool. Also, utility scores were assessed by level of depression severity (mild, moderate, moderate severe, severe) scores as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). RESULTS: Mean utility values were 0.58 (SD = 0.21) for EQ-5D, 0.52 (SD = 0.21) for HUI2, and 0.36 (SD = 0.31) for HUI3. For the EQ-5D, 72 % of participants reported having some problems on the anxiety/depression domain. On the emotion domain for the HUI2, 23 % reported the highest level of impairment compared to only 3 % on the HUI3. No participant scored at the floor for the EQ-5D, HUI2, or HUI3 index; one participant scored at the ceiling value on the HUI3 index. Correlations ranged from 0.63 to 0.82 (all of which were significant at an alpha level of 0.05). In general, utility scores trended inversely with depression level. CONCLUSION: Small differences in the three preference-weighted health-state classification systems were evident for this sample of older African Americans with depressive symptoms, with HUI scores lower than EQ-5D. For this sample, utility scores were lower (i.e., poorer) than the general United States population with depression on each utility measure.
    Quality of Life Research 09/2012; · 2.30 Impact Factor

Show more

Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.

Keywords

calculate single-summary scores
 
comprehensive frameworks
 
cost-effectiveness analyses
 
cost-utility
 
health status
 
Health Utilities Index
 
health-related quality
 
HUI facilitates
 
HUI Mark 2
 
HUI Mark 3
 
HUI2
 
long-term sequelae
 
multi-attribute utility
 
multi-attribute utility functions
 
numerous large general population surveys
 
permits comparisons
 
Population norm data
 
Utility scores
 
valid measures
 
widespread use