Evaluation of the Health Utilities Index Mark-3 in heart failure.
ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change of the Health Utilities Index Mark-3 (HUI-3) in heart failure (HF) for use in cost-effectiveness studies.
Two hundred eleven patients with HF recruited from outpatient clinics were enrolled; 165 completed the 26-week study. Patients completed 4 health-related quality of life questionnaires (baseline and 4, 8, and 26 weeks), including the HUI-3, the Medical Outcomes Study Short-form 12 (SF-12), the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (LHFQ), and the Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire (CHQ). The HUI-3 indicated moderate or fair health-related quality of life overall; the attributes most impaired were pain, ambulation, cognition, and emotion. Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.51) was low and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.68) was adequate. The HUI-3 total score was significantly associated with the SF-12, LHFQ, and CHQ total scores. It discriminated among patients with varying New York Heart Association class (P < .001) and varying perceived health (P < .001). The HUI-3 was less responsive to perceived change in health condition than the LHFQ or the CHQ.
The HUI-3 demonstrated satisfactory reliability and validity in this sample supporting its use in cost-effectiveness studies.
- SourceAvailable from: Stirling Bryan[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Study design:Systematic reviewObjectives:Review the use of generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) within the context of spinal cord injury (SCI).Methods:A systematic search was conducted to identify SCI-related publications that contained any of the following preference-based HRQoL instruments: 15D, Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-4D, AQoL-6D, EQ-5D, EQ-5D-5L, Health Utilities Index (HUI)-2, HUI-3, Quality of Well-Being Scale Self-Administered (QWB-SA), SF-6D(SF-36) or SF-6D(SF-12). In addition to providing an overview of how different preference-based measures have been adopted in SCI research to-date, a focus of evaluation was to collate and appraise evidence for measurement properties and identify knowledge gaps.Results:Twenty-two articles were identified. No studies have used preference-based measures in their conventional form, that is, to calculate quality-adjusted life years using patient-level data. Eleven papers reported mean utility scores (across six different instruments). Directly comparable data exists for only one SCI-specific sample, which showed variation across EQ-5D (0.63), HUI-2 (0.81) and HUI-3 (0.68) index scores. Indirect comparisons suggested differences between QWB-SA and SF-6D index scores within tetraplegic and paraplegic patient groups. Only the QWB-SA and SF-6D have undergone (partial) psychometric evaluation, with the respective authors concluding that the measures have potential for SCI research.Conclusions:Despite 'cost-effectiveness' being an increasingly important consideration for decision makers in all areas of health care, there is a distinct lack of conceptual or empirical research regarding the appropriateness of alternative preference-based HRQoL measures for SCI populations. Given the support for economic evaluation within a cost-utility framework and the paucity of psychometric evidence regarding current instruments, further research is needed.Spinal Cord 05/2012; 50(9):646-54. · 1.90 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Preference-based measures of health-related quality of life all use the same dead = 0.00 to perfect health = 1.00 scale, but there are substantial differences among measures. The objective was to examine agreement in classifying patients as better, stable, or worse. The EQ-5D, Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3, Quality of Well-Being-Self-Administered scale, Short-Form 36 (Short-Form 6D), and disease-targeted measures were administered prospectively in 2 clinical cohorts. The study was conducted at academic medical centers: University of California, Los Angeles; University of California, San Diego; University of Wisconsin-Madison; and University of Southern California. Patients undergoing cataract extraction surgery with lens replacement completed the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25). Patients newly referred to congestive heart failure specialty clinics completed the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHF). In both cohorts, subjects completed surveys at baseline and at 1 and 6 months. The NEI-VFQ-25 and MLHF were used as gold standards to assign patients to categories of change. Agreement was assessed using κ. There were 376 cataract patients recruited. Complete data for baseline and the 1-month follow-up were available on all measures for 210 cases. Using criteria specified by Altman, agreement was poor for 6 of 9 pairs of comparisons and fair for 3 pairs. There were 160 heart failure patients recruited. Complete data for baseline and the 6-month follow-up were available for 86 cases. Agreement was negligible for 5 pairs and fair for 1. The study was conducted on selected patients at a few academic medical centers. The results underscore the lack of interchangeability among different preference-based measures.Medical Decision Making 10/2011; 32(2):273-86. · 2.89 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:: The goal of comparative effectiveness research (CER) is to explain the differential benefits and harms of alternate methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition or to improve the delivery of care. To inform decision making, information from the patient's perspective that reflects outcomes that patients care about are needed and can be collected rigorously using appropriate patient-reported outcomes (PRO). It can be challenging to select the most appropriate PRO measure given the proliferation of such questionnaires over the past 20 years. OBJECTIVE:: In this paper, we discuss the value of PROs within CER, types of measures that are likely to be useful in the CER context, PRO instrument selection, and key challenges associated with using PROs in CER. METHODS:: We delineate important considerations for defining the CER context, selecting the appropriate measures, and for the analysis and interpretation of PRO data. Emerging changes that may facilitate CER using PROs as an outcome are also reviewed including implementation of electronic and personal health records, hospital and population-based registries, and the use of PROs in national monitoring initiatives. The potential benefits of linking the information derived from PRO endpoints in CER to decision making is also reviewed. CONCLUSIONS:: The recommendations presented for incorporating PROs in CER are intended to provide a guide to researchers, clinicians, and policy makers to ensure that information derived from PROs is applicable and interpretable for a given CER context. In turn, CER will provide information that is necessary for clinicians, patients, and families to make informed care decisions.Medical care 08/2012; · 3.24 Impact Factor