The Health Utilities Index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications.

Health Utilities Inc, Dundas, ON, Canada.
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes (Impact Factor: 2.27). 02/2003; 1:54. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-54
Source: PubMed

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.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Health care spending is overwhelmingly concentrated within a very small proportion of the population, referred to as the high-cost users (HCU). To date, research on HCU has been limited in scope, focusing mostly on those characteristics available through administrative databases, which have been largely clinical in nature, or have relied on ecological measures of socio-demographics. This study links population health surveys to administrative data, allowing for the investigation of a broad range of individual-level characteristics and provides a more thorough characterization of community-dwelling HCU across demographic, social, behavioral and clinical characteristics.Methods We linked three cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) to medical claim data for the years 2003¿2008 for Ontario, Canada. Participants were ranked according to gradients of cost (Top 1%, Top 2-5%, Top 6-50% and Bottom 50%) and multinomial logistic regression was used to investigate a wide range of factors, including health behaviors and socio-demographics, likely associated with HCU status.ResultsUsing a total sample of 91,223 adults (18 and older), we found that HCU status was strongly associated with being older, having multiple chronic conditions, and reporting poorer self-perceived health. Specifically, in the fully-adjusted model, poor self-rated health (vs. good) was associated with a 26-fold increase in odds of becoming a Top 1% HCU (vs. Bottom 50% user) [95% CI: (18.9, 36.9)]. Further, HCU tended to be of lower socio-economic status, former daily smokers, physically inactive, current non-drinkers, and obese.Conclusions The results of this study have provided valuable insights into the broader characteristics of community-dwelling HCU, including unique demographic and behavioral characteristics. Additionally, strong associations with self-reported clinical variables, such as self-rated general and mental health, highlight the importance of the patient perspective for HCU. These findings have the potential to inform policies for health care and public health, particularly in light of increasing decision-maker attention in the sustainability of the health care system, improving patient outcomes and, more generally, in order to achieve the common goal of improving population health outcomes.
    BMC Health Services Research 10/2014; 14(1):532. · 1.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Research on self- and family management of chronic conditions has advanced over the past six years, but the use of simple frameworks has hampered the understanding of the complexities involved. Purpose We sought to update our previously published model with new empirical, synthetic, and theoretical work. Method We used synthesis of previous studies to update the framework. Discussion We propose a revised framework that clarifies facilitators and barriers, processes, proximal outcomes, and distal outcomes of self- and family management, and their relationships. Conclusions We offer the revised framework as a model that can be used in studies aimed at advancing self- and family management science. Use of the framework to guide studies would allow for the design of studies that can address more clearly how self-management interventions work and under what conditions.
    Nursing Outlook. 01/2014;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: IntroductionMeasurement of health inequities is fundamental to all health equity initiatives. It is complex because it requires considerations of ethics, methods, and policy. Drawing upon the recent developments in related specialized fields, in this paper we incorporate alternative definitions of health inequity explicitly and transparently in its measurement. We propose a three-stage approach to measuring health inequities that assembles univariate health inequality, univariate health inequity, and bivariate health inequities in a systematic and comparative manner.Methods We illustrate the application of the three-stage approach using the Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health, measuring health by the Health Utilities Index (HUI). Univariate health inequality is the distribution of the observed HUI across individuals. Univariate health inequity is the distribution of unfair HUI ¿ components of HUI associated with ethically unacceptable factors ¿ across individuals. To estimate the unfair HUI, we apply two popular definitions of inequity: ¿equal opportunity for health¿ (health outcomes due to factors beyond individual control are unfair), and ¿policy amenability¿ (health outcomes due to factors amenable to policy interventions are unfair). We quantify univariate health inequality and inequity using the Gini coefficient. We assess bivariate inequities using a regression-based decomposition method.ResultsOur analysis reveals that, empirically, different definitions of health inequity do not yield statistically significant differences in the estimated amount of univariate inequity. This derives from the relatively small explanatory power common in regression models describing variations in health. As is typical, our model explains about 20% of the variation in the observed HUI. With regard to bivariate inequities, income and health care show strong associations with the unfair HUI.Conclusions The measurement of health inequities is an excitingly multidisciplinary endeavour. Its development requires interdisciplinary integration of advances from relevant disciplines. The proposed three- stage approach is one such effort and stimulates cross-disciplinary dialogues, specifically, about conceptual and empirical significance of definitions of health inequities.
    International Journal for Equity in Health 11/2014; 13(1):98. · 1.71 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 31, 2014