Comparing community-preference-based and direct standard gamble utility scores: evidence from elective total hip arthroplasty

OBJECTIVES: Do utility scores based on patient preferences and scores based on community preferences agree? The purpose is to assess agreement between directly measured standard gamble (SG) utility scores and utility scores from the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2) and Mark 3 (HUI3) systems. METHODS: Patients were assessed repeatedly throughout the process of waiting to see a surgeon, waiting for surgery, and recovery after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Group mean scores are compared using paired t-tests. Agreement is assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: The mean SG, HUI2, and HUI3 (SD) scores at assessment 1 are 0.62 (0.31), 0.62 (0.19), and 0.52 (0.21); n=103. At assessment 2, the means are 0.67 (0.30), 0.68 (0.30), and 0.58 (0.22); n=84. There are no statistically significant differences between group mean SG and HUI2 scores. Mean SG and HUI3 scores are significantly different. ICCs are low. CONCLUSIONS: At the mean level for the group, SG and HUI2 scores match closely. At the individual level, agreement is poor. HUI2 scores were greater than HUI3 scores. HUI2 and HUI3 are appropriate for group level analyses relying on community preferences but are not a good substitute for directly measured utility scores at the individual level.     

A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF-6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index

BACKGROUND: The SF-6D is a new health state classification and utility scoring system based on 6 dimensions ('6D') of the Short Form 36, and permits a "bridging" transformation between SF-36 responses and utilities. The Health Utilities Index, mark 3 (HUI3) is a valid and reliable multi-attribute health utility scale that is widely used. We assessed within-subject agreement between SF-6D utilities and those from HUI3. METHODS: Patients at increased risk of sudden cardiac death and participating in a randomized trial of implantable defibrillator therapy completed both instruments at baseline. Score distributions were inspected by scatterplot and histogram and mean score differences compared by paired t-test. Pearson correlation was computed between instrument scores and also between dimension scores within instruments. Between-instrument agreement was by intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: SF-6D and HUI3 forms were available from 246 patients. Mean scores for HUI3 and SF-6D were 0.61 (95% CI 0.60-0.63) and 0.58 (95% CI 0.54-0.62) respectively; a difference of 0.03 (p<0.03). Score intervals for HUI3 and SF-6D were (-0.21 to 1.0) and (0.30-0.95). Correlation between the instrument scores was 0.58 (95% CI 0.48-0.68) and agreement by ICC was 0.42 (95% CI 0.31-0.52). Correlations between dimensions of SF-6D were higher than for HUI3. CONCLUSIONS: Our study casts doubt on the whether utilities and QALYs estimated via SF-6D are comparable with those from HUI3. Utility differences may be due to differences in underlying concepts of health being measured, or different measurement approaches, or both. No gold standard exists for utility measurement and the SF-6D is a valuable addition that permits SF-36 data to be transformed into utilities to estimate QALYs. The challenge is developing a better understanding as to why these classification-based utility instruments differ so markedly in their distributions and point estimates of derived utilities.     

Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke

Objective: To compare five preference-based generic measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in terms of change scores, correlations among change scores, responsiveness, and quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Design: Observational longitudinal cohort study where clinical measures and self-assessed HRQOL measures were administered to stroke patients at baseline and at 6 months. Patients were categorized as ‘stable’, ‘some improvement’ and ‘large improvement’ using the Barthel Index, Modified Rankin Scale (MRS), and Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). For each group, paired t -tests and variants of effect size were used to compare the responsiveness of preference-based HRQOL summary scores, including the EQ-5D VAS and index-based score, SF-6D, and Health Utilities Index (HUI) Mark 2 (HUI2) and Mark 3 (HUI3) overall utility scores. Results: Ninety-eight of 124 (79%) patients completed the 6-month follow-up. Change scores of the EQ-Index, HUI2, and HUI3 were strongly correlated with changes in the Barthel Index and MRS, while the EQ-5D VAS had higher correlation with CES-D change scores than the other measures. The SF-6D, HUI3, and EQ-Index were generally more responsive than the HUI2 and EQ-5D Visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS). QALY estimates based on the EQ-5D index and HUI3 were twice as large as estimates based on the SF-6D and HUI2. Conclusions : The results of this study may assist in informing the selection of a preference-based generic HRQOL measure, although choice will also depend on study goals and context. We would caution against the generalization of the study results on responsiveness to conditions when more subtle change is expected.     

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.     

Discordance in Utility Measurement in Persons with Neurological Conditions: A Comparison of the SF-6D and the HUI3

Objectives

To examine the extent of disagreement in estimated utility between the six-dimensional health state short form (SF-6D) and the Health Utilities Index—Mark 3 (HUI3) in Canadians with neurological conditions and how discordance varied by participant and neurological condition attributes.

Comparing directly measured standard gamble scores to HUI2 and HUI3 utility scores: group- and individual-level comparisons

Directly measured standard gamble (SG) utility scores reflect the respondent's assessment and valuation of their own health status. Scores from the health utilities index (HUI) are based on self-assessed health status but valued using community preferences obtained using the SG. Our objectives were to find if mean directly measured utility scores agree with mean HUI mark 2 (HUI2) and mean HUI mark 3 (HUI3) scores. Also, if individual directly measured utility scores agree with HUI2 and HUI3 scores, and whether HUI2 and HUI3 scores agree. Questionnaires based on the HUI2 and HUI3 health-status classification systems were administered by interviewers to 140 teenage survivors of extremely low birthweight (ELBW) and 124 control group teens. Respondents were asked to think about their own usual health states using six dimensions from HUI2 and value that state using the SG. Mean SG scores are compared with mean HUI2 and mean HUI3 scores using paired sample t-tests. Mean HUI2 scores are compared with mean HUI3 scores. Agreement among scores is assessed using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). The effect of severity of health-state morbidity on agreement was assessed using three approaches. ELBW cohort mean (standard deviation) SG, HUI2, and HUI3 scores were 0.90 (0.20), 0.89 (0.14), and 0.80 (0.22). Results for controls were 0.93 (0.11), 0.95 (0.09), and 0.89 (0.13). Mean SG and HUI2 scores did not differ; mean SG and HUI3 did differ; mean HUI2 and HUI3 also differed. At the individual level for ELBW, the ICCs between SG and HUI2, SG and HUI3, and HUI2 and HUI3 scores were 0.13, 0.28, and 0.64. For controls the ICCs were 0.14, 0.24, and 0.56. HUI2 scores appear to match directly measured utility scores reasonably well at the group level. HUI2 and HUI3 scores differ systematically. At the individual level, however, HUI2 and HUI3 scores are poor substitutes for directly measured scores.     

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.     

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.     

Are indirect utility measures reliable and responsive in rheumatoid arthritis patients?

Background: Preference-based, generic measures are increasingly being used to measure quality of life and as sources for quality weights in the estimation of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, among the most commonly used instruments (the Health Utilities Index 2 and 3 [HUI2 and HUI3], the EuroQoL-5D [EQ-5D], and the Short Form-6D [SF-6D], there has been little comparative research. Therefore, we examined the reliability and responsiveness of these measures and the Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life (RAQoL) and the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) in a sample of RA patients. Major findings: Test–retest reliability was acceptable for all of the instruments with the exception of the EQ-5D. Using two external criteria to define change (a patient transition question and categories of the patient global assessment of disease activity VAS), the RAQoL was the most responsive of the instruments. For the indirect utility instruments, the HUI3 and the SF-6D were the most responsive for measuring positive change. On average, for patients whose RA improved, the absolute change was highest for the HUI3. Conclusions: The HUI3 and the SF-6D appear to be the most responsive of the preference-based instruments in RA. However, differences in the magnitude of the absolute change scores have important implications for cost-effectiveness analyses.     

Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision

Utility scores were estimated for 609 hearing-impaired adults who completed EQ-5D, Health Utilities Index Mark III (HUI3) and SF-6D survey instruments both before and after being provided with a hearing aid. Pre-intervention, the mean utility scores for EQ-5D (0.80) and SF-6D (0.78) were significantly higher than the mean HUI3 utility score (0.58). Post-intervention, the mean improvement in the HUI3 (0.06 change) was significantly higher than the mean improvement according to the EQ-5D (0.01 change) or SF-6D (0.01 change). The estimated cost effectiveness of hearing-aid provision is therefore likely to be dependent on which instrument is used to measure utility.     

Comparing short form and RAND physical and mental health summary scores: results from total hip arthroplasty and high-risk primary-care patients

OBJECTIVES: Summary physical health scores for the Short Form (SF) measures are computing using positive weights for physical items and negative weights for mental health items. Mental health summary scores use positive weights for mental items and negative weights for physical. The RAND Health Status Inventory (HSI) measures do not use negative weights. Do these different approaches to scoring matter? The objective was to compare summary scores using both the SF and RAND-HSI. METHODS: SF-36 and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) were administered to a cohort of patients waiting for elective total hip arthroplasty (THA). SF-12 and HUI3 were administered to a cohort of high-risk primary-care patients. Summary scores were generated and compared. Single-attribute utility scores for emotion in HUI3 were also computed. Canadian and US norms for SF, RAND-HSI, and HUI3 were used to interpret results. RESULTS: For THA patients, mean physical health scores were 28 and 36 for SF and RAND-HSI. Mean mental health scores were 55 and 42. For the primary-care patients, the scores were 34 and 36 for physical and 46 and 40 for mental health. CONCLUSIONS: SF and RAND-HSI provided somewhat similar summary scores in the THA study. However, SF and RAND-HSI mental health scores differed in the primary-care patient cohort and results from HUI3 corroborate the mental health deficits identified by the RAND-HSI. It may be wise for investigators to use both SF and RAND-HSI scoring systems.     

Five preference-based indexes in cataract and heart failure patients were not equally responsive to change

Objective

To compare the responsiveness to clinical change of five widely used preference-based health-related quality-of-life indexes in two longitudinal cohorts.

Study Design and Setting

Five generic instruments were simultaneously administered to 376 adults undergoing cataract surgery and 160 adults in heart failure management programs. Patients were assessed at baseline and reevaluated after 1 and 6 months. The measures were the Short Form (SF)-6D (based on responses scored from SF-36v2), Self-Administered Quality of Well-being Scale (QWB-SA), the EuroQol-5D developed by the EuroQol Group, the Health Utilities Indexes Mark 2 (HUI2) and Mark 3 (HUI3). Cataract patients completed the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25, and heart failure patients completed the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire. Responsiveness was estimated by the standardized response mean.

Results

For cataract patients, mean changes between baseline and 1-month follow-up for the generic indices ranged from 0.00 (SF-6D) to 0.052 (HUI3) and were statistically significant for all indexes except the SF-6D. For heart failure patients, only the SF-6D showed significant change from baseline to 1 month, whereas only the QWB-SA change was significant between 1 and 6 months.

Conclusions

Preference-based methods for measuring health outcomes are not equally responsive to change.     

The effect of weight loss on changes in health-related quality of life among overweight and obese women with urinary incontinence

Objective

To estimate the effect of change in weight and change in urinary incontinence (UI) frequency on changes in preference-based measures of health-related quality of life (HRQL) among overweight and obese women with UI participating in a weight loss trial.

Methods

We conducted a longitudinal cohort analysis of 338 overweight and obese women with UI enrolled in a randomized clinical trial comparing a behavioral weight loss intervention to an educational control condition. At baseline, 6, and 18?months, health utilities were estimated using the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3), a transformation of the SF-36 to the preference-based SF-6D, and the estimated Quality of Well-Being (eQWB) score (a summary calculated from the SF-36 physical functioning, mental health, bodily pain, general health perceptions, and role limitations?Cphysical subscale scores). Potential predictors of changes in these outcomes were examined using generalized estimating equations.

Results

In adjusted multivariable models, weight loss was associated with improvement in HUI3, SF-6D, and eQWB at 6 and 18?months (P?<?0.05). Increases in physical activity also were independently associated with improvement in HUI3 (P?=?0.01) and SF-6D (P?=?0.006) scores at 18?months. In contrast, reduction in UI frequency did not predict improvements in HRQL at 6 or 18?months.

Conclusion

Weight loss and increased physical activity, but not reduction in UI frequency, were strongly associated with improvements in health utilities measured by the HUI3, SF-6D, and eQWB. These findings provide important information that can be used to inform cost?Cutility analyses of weight loss interventions.     

Comparison of three societally derived health-state classification values among older African Americans with depressive symptoms

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.     

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.     

Evidence on the longitudinal construct validity of major generic and utility measures of health-related quality of life in teens with depression

Purpose

To examine the longitudinal construct validity in the assessment of changes in depressive symptoms of widely used utility and generic HRQL instruments in teens.

Methods

392 teens enrolled in the study and completed HRQL and diagnostic measures as part of the baseline interview. HRQL measures included EuroQol (EQ-5D-3L), Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2) and Mark 3 (HUI3), Quality of Well-Being Scale (QWB), Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PEDS-QL), RAND-36 (SF-6D), and Quality of Life in Depression Scale (QLDS). Youth completed follow-up interviews 12 weeks after baseline. Sixteen youth (4.1%) were lost to follow-up. We examined correlations between changes in HRQL instruments and the Children’s Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) and assessed clinically meaningful change in multi-attribute utility HRQL measures using mean change (MC) and standardized response mean (SRM) among youth showing at least moderate (20%) improvement in depression symptomology.

Results

Spearman’s correlation coefficients demonstrated moderate correlation between changes in CDRS-R and the HUI2 (r?=?0.38), HUI3 (r?=?0.42), EQ-5D-3L (r?=?0.36), SF-6D (r?=?0.39), and PEDS-QL (r?=?0.39) and strong correlation between changes in CDRS-R and QWB (r?=?0.52) and QLDS (r?=???0.71). Effect size results are also reported. Among multi-attribute utility measures, all showed clinically meaningful improvements in the sample of youth with depression improvement (HUI2, MC?=?0.20, SRM?=?0.97; HUI3, MC?=?0.32, SRM?=?1.17; EQ-5D-3L, MC?=?0.08, SRM?=?0.51; QWB, MC?=?0.11, SRM?=?0.86; and SF-6D, MC?=?0.12, SRM?=?1.02).

Conclusions

Findings support the longitudinal construct validity of included HRQL instruments for the assessment of change in depression outcomes in teens. Results of this study can help inform researchers about viable instruments to include in economic evaluations for this population.

     

Comparison of EQ-5D,HUI, and SF-36-derived societal health state values among Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) participants

Purpose: To compare societal values across health-state classification systems and to describe the performance of these systems at baseline in a large population of persons with confirmed diagnosis of intervertebral disc herniation (IDH), spinal stenosis (SpS), or degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). Methods: We compared values for EQ-5D (York weights), HUI (Mark 2 and 3), SF-6D, and the SF-36-derived estimate of the Quality of Well Being (eQWB) score using signed rank tests. We tested each instruments ability to discriminate between health categories and level of symptom satisfaction. Correlations were assessed with Spearman rank correlations. We evaluated ceiling and floor effects by comparing the proportion at the highest and the lowest possible score for each tool. In addition, we compared proportions at the highest and lowest levels by dimension. The number of unique health states assigned was compared across instruments. We calculated the difference between those who were very dissatisfied and all others. Results: Mean values ranged from 0.39 to 0.63 among 2097 participants ages 18–93 (mean age 53, 47 female) with significant differences in pair-wise comparisons noted for all systems. Correlations ranged from 0.30 to 0.78. Although all systems showed statistically significant differences in health state values when baseline comparisons were made between those who were very dissatisfied with their symptoms and those who were not, the magnitude of this difference ranged widely across systems. Mean differences (95 CI) between those very dissatisfied and all others were 0.30 (0.269, 0.329) for EQ-5D, 0.22 (0.190, 0.241) for HUI(3), 0.18 (0.161, 0.201) for HUI(2), 0.11 (0.095, 0.117) for SF-6D, 0.04 (0.039, 0.049) for eQWB, and 0.07 (0.056, 0.077) for VAS (with transformation applied to group means). Conclusion: Differences in preference-weighted health state classification systems are evident at baseline in a population with confirmed IDH, SpS, and DS. Caution should be used when comparing health state values derived from various systems.     

Assessing Differences in Utility Scores: A Comparison of Four Widely Used Preference-Based Instruments

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the differences in utility scores (dUTY) among four commonly used preference-based Health-Related Quality of Life instruments, to evaluate the potential impact of these differences on cost-utility analyses (CUA), and to determine if sociodemographic/clinical factors influenced the magnitude of these differences. METHODS: Consenting adult Chinese, Malay and Indian subjects in Singapore were interviewed using Singapore English, Chinese, Malay or Tamil versions of the EQ-5D, Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2) and Mark 3 (HUI3), and SF-6D. Agreement between instruments was assessed using Bland-Altman (BA) plots. Changes in incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) from dUTY were investigated using eight hypothetical decision trees. The influence of sociodemographic/clinical factors on dUTY between instrument pairs was studied using multiple linear regression (MLR) models for English-speaking subjects (circumventing structural zero issues). RESULTS: In 667 subjects (median age 48 years, 59% female), median utility scores ranged from 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80, 0.85) for the EQ-5D to 0.89 (95% CI 0.88, 0.89) for the SF-6D. BA plots: Mean differences (95% CI) exceeded the clinically important difference (CID) of 0.04 for four of six pairwise comparisons, with the exception of the HUI2/EQ-5D (0.03, CI: 0.02, 0.04) and SF-6D/HUI2 (0.02, CI: 0.006, 0.02). Decision trees: The ICER ranged from $94,661/QALY (quality-adjusted life-year; 6.3% difference from base case) to 100,693 dollars/QALY (0.3% difference from base case). MLR: Chronic medical conditions, marital status, and Family Functioning Measures scores significantly (P-value < 0.05) influenced dUTY for several instrument pairs. CONCLUSION: Although CIDs in utility measurements were present for different preference-based instruments, the impact of these differences on CUA appeared relatively minor. Chronic medical conditions, marital status, and family functioning influenced the magnitude of these differences.     

An assessment of validity and responsiveness of generic measures of health-related quality of life in hearing impairment

Purpose

This review examines psychometric performance of three widely used generic preference-based measures, that is, EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D), Health Utility Index 3 (HUI3) and Short-form 6 dimensions (SF-6D) in patients with hearing impairments.

Methods

A systematic search was undertaken to identify studies of patients with hearing impairments where health state utility values were measured and reported. Data were extracted and analysed to assess the reliability, validity (known group differences and convergent validity) and responsiveness of the measures across hearing impairments.

Results

Fourteen studies (18 papers) were included in the review. HUI3 was the most commonly used utility measures in hearing impairment. In all six studies, the HUI3 detected difference between groups defined by the severity of impairment, and four out of five studies detected statistically significant changes as a result of intervention. The only study available suggested that EQ-5D only had weak ability to discriminate difference between severity groups, and in four out of five studies, EQ-5D failed to detected changes. Only one study involved the SF-6D; thus, the information is too limited to conclude on its performance. Also evidence for the reliability of these measures was not found.

Conclusion

Overall, the validity and responsiveness of the HUI3 in hearing impairment was good. The responsiveness of EQ-5D was relatively poor and weak validity was suggested by limited evidence. The evidence on SF-6D was too limited to make any judgment. More head-to-head comparisons of these and other preference measures of health are required.