Construct validity of the RAND-12 and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and 3 in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cross-sectional construct validity of the RAND-12 and the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2) and Mark 3 (HUI3) in type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Parametric tests were used to test for differences in HRQL scores between known groups with type 2 diabetes, defined in terms of treatment intensity, duration of diabetes and glycemic control. RESULTS: The PHC of the RAND-12 was significantly lower for individuals treated with insulin (40.28 +/- 10.97) than diet alone (45.18 +/- 12.02, p < 0.01), as was the MHC (42.83 +/- 10.75 vs. 46.87 +/- 10.89, p < 0.05). MHC (43.56 +/- 10.20 vs. 46.18 +/- 9.94, p < 0.05) and PHC (41.04 +/- 10.64 vs. 45.62 +/- 10.48, p < 0.001) were both lower for those with longer duration of diabetes. Overall HUI3 scores were lower in individuals above the median duration of diabetes (5.0 years) as compared to those with a shorter duration (0.60 +/- 0.29 vs. 0.67 +/- 0.29, p < 0.01) and for individuals whose diabetes was managed using insulin compared to diet alone (0.59 +/- 0.30 vs. 0.69 +/- 0.30, p < 0.05). Disease severity was associated with impairment on the ambulation, dexterity and pain attributes of the HUI3. Similar results were found for the HUI2. Overall HUI2 scores were highest for individuals managed with diet alone compared to those managed with insulin. Disease severity was associated with the mobility and self-care attributes of the HUI2. No relationship was found between any of the measures of HRQL and glycemic control. CONCLUSIONS: Scores for individuals presumed to have more severe or advanced disease were significantly lower for many comparisons using the RAND-12, HUI2 and HUI3. The results of this study contribute evidence of construct validity of the HUI2, HUI3 and RAND-12 in type 2 diabetes.     

Comparing the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) with the Short Form-36 Preference-Based SF-6D in Chronic Kidney Disease

Objective:  Assess within-subject agreement and compare discriminative abilities between the SF-6D and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).
Methods:  The HUI3 and Short Form-36 were self-completed by 185 CKD patients enrolled in a prospective study of incident patients with stage 4 and 5 CKD.
Results:  The mean preference-based score for the SF-6D was 0.67 ± 0.13 compared to 0.58 ± 0.26 for the HUI3 ( P  < 0.01). There was a strong association between SF-6D and HUI3 scores (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.55, 95% CI 0.43–0.65) and moderate agreement with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.44. The HUI3 was better able to capture more severe burden of illness with fewer floor effects. The SF-6D was better at capturing differences among patients at the top range of the scale with fewer ceiling effects. Both the HUI3 and SF-6D were able to discriminate between patient groups differing in disease severity defined as predialysis versus dialysis dependent and depressive symptoms using a Beck Depression Inventory II score of ≥14 as the cutoff. The HUI3 was better able to discriminate greater depressive symptoms.
Conclusion:  The SF-6D and the HUI3 generate different preference-based scores for patients with CKD and any comparison between their scores should be made with caution. The HUI3 appears more suitable for measuring the health of populations with greater disability such as patients with CKD. It remains to be determined whether these differences will remain when one compares within-instrument differences in preference scores over time.     

Longitudinal construct validity of the Health Utilities Indices Mark 2 and Mark 3 in hip fracture

Purpose

The objective of this study is to evaluate the longitudinal construct validity of the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2) and Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) using a convergent/divergent validity approach in patients recovering from hip fracture, with the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) as the comparator.

Methods

A total of 278 patients with a primary diagnosis of hip fracture were interviewed 3–5 days after surgery and then at 1 and 6 months using the HUI2, HUI3 and the FIM and a Likert-type rating of hip pain. A priori hypotheses were formulated. Convergent and divergent correlations between HUI2, HUI3 and FIM change scores for the baseline to 1-month and baseline to 6-month intervals were examined.

Results

Overall HUI2 detected continued gain in health-related quality of life between 1 and 6 months after fracture, as the change increased from 0.20 to 0.29 units. The correlation between change in the overall HUI2 score and total FIM score was moderate (r = 0.50) over the 6-month interval, but larger than the observed correlation over the 1-month interval (r = 0.36). The correlation between change in overall HUI3 score and total FIM over the 1-month interval was small (r = 0.32), and the correlation between change in overall HUI3 score and total FIM was moderate (r = 0.37) over the 6-month interval. All hypotheses for the divergent correlations were supported.

Conclusions

Weaker correlations were reported for change over 1 month as compared to change over the 6 months after fracture. Findings supported the longitudinal construct validity of the overall HUI2 and HUI3 for the assessment of recovery following hip fracture, particularly for change over the 6 months following fracture.     

A cohort study found the RAND-12 and Health Utilities Index Mark 3 demonstrated construct validity in high-risk primary care patients

OBJECTIVE: The Short Form 12 (SF-12) is widely used in primary care settings. The RAND-12 Health Status Inventory (HSI) and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) have not been as widely used in such settings. The objective of this study was to examine the construct validity of the RAND-12 and HUI3 in the context of high-risk primary care patients. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The SF-12, HUI2, and HUI3 were administered to a cohort of high-risk primary care patients. RAND-12 summary scores for physical and mental health were generated. Single-attribute utility scores for each dimension of health status and overall health in HUI3 were computed. A priori hypotheses were specified. RESULTS: In general, the relationships among RAND-12 and HUI3 scores were consistent with construct validity. Twelve of 24 a priori predictions were confirmed. However, predictions about the correlations between the number of medical conditions and the number of medications and the measures of health-related quality of life were, in general, not confirmed. CONCLUSIONS: The RAND-12 and HUI3 seem to be useful among primary care patients with diverse chronic conditions. Further investigation is warranted.     

A comparison of the health utilities indices Mark 2 and Mark 3 in type 2 diabetes.

PURPOSE: Past research into health-related quality of life (HRQL) in diabetes using preference-based measures, such as the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2) or the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3), is sparse. Important differences between the HUI2 and HUI3 could lead to differences in their abilities to capture HRQL deficits in type 2 diabetes. This analysis compared the extent to which the HUI2 and HUI3 detect differences associated with varying levels of disease severity or advancement in type 2 diabetes. METHODS. This analysis was conducted as part of using baseline, cross-sectional data from a larger, prospective, controlled study of an intervention to improve care for individuals with type 2 diabetes in rural communities in Alberta, Canada. The HU12 and HUI3 were self-administered to 372 community-dwelling individuals with type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: Relative to HUI2 scores, larger differences in overall HUI3 scores were seen for comparisons for individuals presumed to have more advanced disease. The pain attribute of the HUI3 categorized a larger proportion of individuals as moderately to severely impaired (41.5% v. 24.2%, P < 0.001), as did the emotion attribute (20.5% v. 7.7%, P < 0.001). For individuals with negative overall HUI3 scores, differences between overall HUI2 and HUI3 scores persisted after rescaling (mean difference = 0.33, P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: The greater range of possible scores on the HUI3, its relative ability to assess the utility of states worse than dead, and its relative superiority in discriminating moderate to severe impairment from mild or no impairment might favor its use over the HUI2 in type 2 diabetes.     

A Study of the Construct Validity of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) in Patients with Schizophrenia

This study assessed the construct validity of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) in patients with schizophrenia. Patients with schizophrenia recruited from a tertiary mental hospital in Singapore completed the HUI3, the Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) and the Schizophrenia Quality of Life Scale (SQLS). Patients were assessed for presence and absence of 22 common psychiatric symptoms. Construct validity was assessed using 6 a priori hypotheses. Two hundred and two patients (mean age: 37.8 years, female: 52%) completed the survey. As hypothesized, overall HUI3 utility scores were correlated with SF-36 measures (Spearman’s rho: 0.19 to 0.51), SQLS scales (Spearman’s rho: −0.56 to −0.36), and the number of psychiatric symptoms (Spearman’s rho: −0.49). The HUI3 emotion attribute was moderately correlated with SF-36 mental health (Spearman’s rho: 0.45) and SQLS psychosocial scales (Spearman’s rho: −0.43), and HUI3 pain attribute was strongly correlated with SF-36 bodily pain scale (Spearman’s rho: 0.58). The mean HUI3 overall, emotion, cognition, and speech scores for patients with schizophrenia were 0.07, 0.09, 0.04 and 0.04 points lower than respective age-, sex- and ethnicity-adjusted population norms (p<0.001 for all, ANCOVA). This study provides evidence for the construct validity of the HUI3 in patients with schizophrenia.     

Health Utilities Index Mark 3 showed valid in Alzheimer disease, arthritis, and cataracts

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cross-sectional construct validity of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) in Alzheimer disease (AD), arthritis (AR), and cataracts (CA). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The 1996-97 Canadian National Population Health Survey for community and institution-dwelling respondents aged 40 years and above was used in the study. Adjusted means for overall and single-attribute HUI3 scores of five subgroups were compared: (1) AD only, (2) AR only, (3) CA only, (4) at least two of the three conditions, and (5) none of the three (reference group). Regression analyses were conducted for community and institutional data to obtain adjusted mean utility scores. RESULTS: Of the 76 a priori hypotheses, 55 were confirmed. HUI3 was able to describe overall burdens of AD, AR, and CA as well as vision problems associated with CA, speech and cognition problems associated with AD, and ambulation and pain problems associated with AR. Adjusted mean differences in overall HUI3 scores between AD, AR, or CA only groups and reference group ranged from -0.04 to -0.42 (P<0.05); all differences were quantitatively important. CONCLUSION: HUI3 is useful in assessing the health-related quality of life of AD, AR, and CA of those living in the community and institutions.     

The construct validity of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 in assessing mental health in population health surveys

Purpose  To examine the construct validity of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) by exploring relationships among several well-recognized measures of mental health, the K6 and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and the HUI3 in a large, nationally representative sample of community-dwelling subjects. Known-group comparisons were also included in the validation process. Methods  We specified a priori hypotheses about the expected degree of association between the measures. Correlation coefficients of <0.1 were defined as negligible, 0.1 to <0.3 as small, 0.3 to <0.5 as medium, and ≥0.5 as large. Data from the Statistics Canada National Population Health Survey (NPHS) Cycle 2 (1996/97) for respondents 20 years of age or older (n = 66,435) were used to test the a priori hypotheses. Results  In 58.1% of cases, predictions of association were correct. Predictions were off by one category in 38.9% of cases and a priori predictions were off by two categories in 3.0% of cases. Conclusions  Our results provide evidence supporting the cross-sectional construct validity of the HUI3 emotion and HUI3 in a nationally representative sample of the community-dwelling population. The results also provide further evidence of the cross-sectional construct validity of the HUI3 in assessing population health. An erratum to this article can be found at     

French Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the Health Utilities Indexes Mark 2 (HUI2) and 3 (HUI3) Classification Systems

The McMaster Health Utilities Indexes Mark 2 (HUI2) and 3 (HUI3) are multiattribute health classification systems, for which multiattribute preference functions have been developed in Canada. They provide a comprehensive instrument for use in economic evaluations and population health survey studies. This paper reports on the first results on the adaptation of the HUI2 and HUI3 systems cross-culturally and the assessment of the validity and reliability of the French self-report questionnaire in different patient populations. The cross-cultural adaptation included translation, backtranslations, an expert consensus meeting and pre-test with a few patients and healthy subjects in order to produce a conceptually equivalent French version of the 15 question self-report questionnaire and the HUI2 and HUI3 classification systems. Different groups of patients attending specialized clinics (n = 709) completed the questionnaire and another generic questionnaire (the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP)) for validity assessment. Physicians and patients were also asked for a global subjective assessment of the patient's health status. The French questionnaire was well received by the patients. The criterion and convergent validities of both classification systems (correlations with the patients' and physicians' assessments and with the responses to the SIP questionnaire) were satisfactory. The internal consistency was acceptable too (Cronbach's α = 0.81), as was the 3 day test-retest reproducibility. These first results authorize careful use of the 15 question self-report questionnaire in French. An assessment of the multiattribute preference function for the HUI3 system in France will be the study's next objective. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

A comparison of HUI2 and HUI3 utility scores in Alzheimer's disease.

PURPOSE: The Health Utilities Index (HUI) is a generic, multiattribute, preference-based health-status classification system. The HUI Mark 3 (HUI3) differs from the earlier HUI2 by modifying attributes and allowing more flexibility for capturing high levels of impairment. The authors compared HUI2 and HUI3 scores of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and caregivers, and contrasted results of a cost-effectiveness analysis of new drugs for AD using the two systems. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study of 679 AD patient/caregiver pairs, stratified by patient's disease stage (questionable/mild/moderate/severe/profound/terminal) and setting (community/assisted living/nursing home), caregivers completed the combined HUI2/HUI3 questionnaire as proxy respondents for patients and for themselves. RESULTS: Mean (SD) global utility scores for patients were lower on the HUI3 (0.22[0.26]) than on the HUI2 (0.53 [0.21]). Patient HUI3 utility scores ranged from 0.47(0.24) for questionable AD to -0.23 (0.08) for terminal AD, compared with a range of 0.73 (0.15) to 0.14 (0.07) for the HUI2. Among the 203 patients in the severe, profound, and terminal stages, 96 (48%) had negative global HUI3 utility scores, while none had a negative HUI2 score. The utility scores for caregivers were similar on the HUI3 (0.87 [0.14]) and HUI2 (0.87 [0.11]). Cost-effectiveness analysis of a new medication to treat AD showed somewhat more favorable results using the HUI3. CONCLUSIONS: The HUI2 and HUI3 discriminate well across AD stages. Compared with the HUI2, the HUI3 yields lower global utility scores for patients with AD, and more scores for states judged worse than dead. The HUI3 may yield substantially different results from the HUI2, particularly for persons who have serious cognitive impairments such as AD.     

How robust is the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 utility function?

PURPOSE: The utility function for the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2) system is based on preference measurements from a random sample of parents with exclusion of inconsistent respondents. Would results without exclusions or from a different group of parents have differed? METHODS: Scores were obtained from parents of patients (n = 59) undergoing treatment for cancer. Mean scores from the 2 sets of parents were compared:parents of patients and parents from the general population. Three multiattribute utility functions were estimated. Mean scores for HUI2 states using the functions were compared. RESULTS: Most differences in mean scores between different groups were not statistically significant (P < 0.05). Differences in parameter estimates among the 3 utility functions were 0.05 or less. The exponent on the power function for the parent-of-patient group was 2.16, within 6% of that for random sample parents. The intraclass correlation between scores for 144 health states derived from the random-sample-parents and parents-of-patients functions was 0.99; the mean difference per state in scores was 0.018. CONCLUSION: The HUI2 scoring function generalizes well in that different groups of parents give similar results. The HUI2 scoring function is robust in that the functions without and with exclusions generate scores that are very close in value.     

Choosing between measures: comparison of EQ-5D,HUI2 and HUI3 in persons with hearing complaints

Objectives To generate insight into the differences between utility measures EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D), Health Utilities Index Mark II (HUI2) and Mark III (HUI3) and their impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for hearing aid fitting Methods Persons with hearing complaints completed EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 at baseline and, when applicable, after hearing aid fitting. Practicality, construct validity, agreement, responsiveness and impact on the ICER were examined. Results All measures had high completion rates. HUI3 was capable of discriminating between clinically distinctive groups. Utility scores (n = 315) for EQ-5D UK and Dutch tariff (0.83; 0.86), HUI2 (0.77) and HUI3 (0.61) were significantly different, agreement was low to moderate. Change after hearing aid fitting (n = 70) for HUI2 (0.07) and HUI3 (0.12) was statistically significant, unlike the EQ-5D UK (0.01) and Dutch (0.00) tariff. ICERs varied from €647,209/QALY for the EQ-5D Dutch tariff to €15,811/QALY for HUI3. Conclusion Utility scores, utility gain and ICERs heavily depend on the measure that is used to elicit them. This study indicates HUI3 as the instrument of first choice when measuring utility in a population with hearing complaints, but emphasizes the importance of a clear notion of what constitutes utility with regard to economic analyses.     

Validation of a Prediction Model to Estimate Health Utilities Index Mark 3 Utility Scores from WOMAC Index Scores in Patients with Osteoarthritis of the Hip

Objective:  To examine the validity of a newly developed prediction model translating osteoarthritis (OA)-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL) scores measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) into generic utility-based HRQL scores measured using the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3).
Methods:  Preintervention data from 145 patients with hip OA and complete WOMAC and HUI3 baseline assessments from the Alberta Hip Improvement Project study were used to validate three utility prediction models. These models were estimated using data from a previous study of knee OA patients. Predictive performance was assessed using the mean absolute prediction error (MAE) criterion and several other criteria.
Results:  The validation sample appeared healthier (on the basis of the HUI3 and WOMAC) than the subjects used toestimate the prediction models. Nevertheless, the validation sample outperformed the predictive performance of the model sample. The results from the validation sample support the conclusions from the original study in that the primary model identified during model development (a model using WOMAC subscales, their interactions, their square terms, age, OA duration, their square terms, and gender) performed better on the MAE criterion than competing models.
Conclusion:  These results support the external validity of the prediction model for the retrospective estimation of HUI3 utility scores for use in economic evaluation.     

Comparison of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D in patients treated for intermittent claudication

The Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D (EQ-5D) were compared to each other and to other quality-of-life (QoL) measures in patients treated for intermittent claudication. A total of 88 patients with intermittent claudication completed the HUI3, EQ-5D, RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0, time tradeoff, standard gamble, and rating scale before revascularization and at follow-up at 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year. The effect of treatment on the HUI3 and EQ-5D dimensions and the overall scores, calculated using published formulas based on societal preferences, were compared. After 1 month of treatment, the majority of patients showed improvement on the HUI3 dimensions ambulation and pain and on the EQ-5D dimensions mobility, usual activities, and pain/discomfort. The mean HUI3 score was significantly higher than the mean EQ-5D score (0.66 and 0.57, respectively, p < 0.01) before treatment. After treatment, however, they were not significantly different from each other (e.g., 12 months after treatment: 0.77 and 0.75, respectively (p > 0.05). After 1 month, the scores did not change significantly over time (p > 0.05). The intraclass correlation coefficient between changes over time in the HUI3 and EQ-5D scores was 0.30, with other health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) measures the correlations for HUI3 and EQ-5D were very similar. In conclusion, both the HUI3 and EQ-5D demonstrated an effect of treatment in patients with intermittent claudication; in addition, they showed similar relationships with other (HRQoL) measures. To demonstrate the effect of revascularization in patients with intermittent claudication, however, clinicians and researchers should be aware of the differences in the mean HUI3 and EQ-5D scores. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Health Utilities Index mark 3 demonstrated construct validity in a population-based sample with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cross-sectional construct validity of the Health Utilities Index mark 3 (HUI3) in type 2 diabetes using population health survey data. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Data used were from 5,134 adult respondents of Cycle 1.1 (2000-2001) of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) with type 2 diabetes. Analyses of covariance models were used to assess differences in overall and single-attribute HUI3 scores between groups hypothesized a priori to differ in HRQL. The association between health-care resource use (i.e., hospitalizations and physician and emergency room visits) and overall HUI3 scores was assessed using logistic regression models. RESULTS: For overall HUI3 scores, clinically important and statistically significant differences were observed between all groups expected to differ in HRQL. Depression was the comorbidity associated with the largest deficit (-0.17; 95% confidence interval CI=-0.22, -0.12), followed by stroke (-0.15; 95% CI=-0.21, -0.10) and heart disease (-0.08; 95% CI=-0.11, -0.05). Insulin use and comorbidities were associated with clinically important deficits in pain. Overall HUI3 scores were significantly predictive of all three categories of health-care resource use. CONCLUSION: Observed differences between groups contribute further evidence of the construct validity of the HUI3 in type 2 diabetes.     

The construct validity of the health utilities index mark 3 in assessing health status in lung transplantation

Purpose  

To assess the cross-sectional construct validity of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) in lung transplantation.     

Health-related quality of life measure based on the minimum data set

OBJECTIVES: To introduce a health-related quality of life measure for home care and institutional long-term care settings based on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) and the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2). METHODS: Health attributes of Health Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) were identified, and suitable constructs were determined. Items from the MDS were mapped to the HUI2. Scores for the Minimum Data Set Health Status Index (MDS-HSI) were calculated using the HUI2 scoring function. Measurement properties are examined and reported. HRQOL scores were compared across study populations and to an external reference population. Random samples were drawn from long-term care clients in private households (n = 377), supportive housing apartments (n = 80), two residential care facilities (n = 166), and a chronic care hospital (n = 274) in Ontario, Canada. All sampled residents were assessed for health-related items using the MDS. RESULTS: The MDS-HSI results provide preliminary evidence of good validity. Institutional populations had lower overall HRQOL scores than community populations. Comparisons to existing Canadian national data support construct validity. CONCLUSIONS: The MDS-HSI provides a summary outcome measure and an indicator of health status in the six supporting attributes. Longitudinal research is required to assess the sensitivity of the measure to changes overtime. Further research is also required to establish the consistency between the preference weights used in this application of the HUI2 and those that would be derived from a frail elderly population.