Comparing Short Form 6D,Standard Gamble,and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 utility scores: Results from total hip arthroplasty patients

Objective: The objectives are to compare SF-6D, standard gamble (SG), and Health Utilities Index (HUI) utility scores, compare change scores, and compare responsiveness. Methods: A cohort of osteoarthritis patients referred for total hip arthroplasty (THA) were evaluated at the time of referral and followed until 3months after THA. Patients were assessed using the SF-36, HUI2, HUI3, and the SG. Agreement is assessed using the intra-class correlation (ICC). Responsiveness is assessed using effect size, standardized response mean, and paired t-test. Results: Data was available for 86 patients at baseline and for 63 at both pre- and post-surgery. At baseline mean SF-6D (0.61), SG (0.62), and HUI2 (0.62) scores were similar; the mean HUI3 score (0.52) was lower. Standard deviations were 0.10, 0.32, 0.19, and 0.22. At baseline, agreement between SF-6D and SG scores was 0.13, agreement between SF-6D and HUI2 was 0.47, and agreement between SF-6D and HUI3 was 0.28. Agreement at pre- and post-surgery was similar. The change in scores between post- and pre-surgery was 0.10 for SF-6D, 0.16 for SG, 0.22 for HUI2, and 0.23 for HUI3. Effect sizes were 1.10 for HUI2, 1.08 for HUI3, 1.06 for SF-6D, and 0.48 for the SG. Conclusions: Agreement between SG scores and SF-6D and HUI scores was low. The estimate of change in utility associated with THA was lowest for SF-6D. Additional longitudinal studies to compare utility measures appear to be warranted.     

A Review of the Psychometric Performance of Selected Child and Adolescent Preference-Based Measures Used to Produce Utilities for Child and Adolescent Health

ObjectiveThis review examined the psychometric performance of 4 generic child- and adolescent-specific preference-based measures that can be used to produce utilities for child and adolescent health.MethodsA systematic search was undertaken to identify studies reporting the psychometric performance of the Child Health Utility (CHU9D), EQ-5D-Y (3L or 5L), and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2) or Mark 3 (HUI3) in children and/or adolescents. Data were extracted to assess known-group validity, convergent validity, responsiveness, reliability, acceptability, and feasibility. Data were extracted separately for the dimensions and utility index where this was reported.ResultsThe review included 76 studies (CHU9D n = 12, EQ-5D-Y-3L n = 20, HUI2 n = 26,HUI3 n = 43), which varied considerably across conditions and sample size. EQ-5D-Y-3L had the largest amount of evidence of good psychometric performance in proportion to the number of studies examining performance. The majority of the evidence related to EQ-5D-Y-3L was based on dimensions. CHU9D was assessed in fewer studies, but the majority of studies found evidence of good psychometric performance. Evidence for HUI2 and HUI3 was more mixed, but the studies were more limited in sample size and statistical power, which was likely to have affected performance.ConclusionsThe heterogeneity of published studies means that the evidence is based on studies across a range of countries, populations and conditions, using different study designs, different languages, different value sets and different statistical techniques. Evidence for CHU9D in particular is based on a limited number of studies. The findings raise concerns about the comparability of self-report and proxy-report responses to generate utility values for children and adolescents.     

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.     

Areas of decrement in health-related quality of life (HRQL): Comparing the SF-12, EQ-5D,and HUI 3

Background: Different measures of health status and health-related quality of life (HRQL) have been advocated for different purposes at the clinical and population level. Relatively little is known about how these measures function in relationship to one another. We examined the relationship between the Short-Form 12 (SF-12), EQ-5D, and Health Utilities Index (HUI) Mark 3 for overall scores and in analogous domains of health. A convenience sample was obtained through surveying patients at an inner-city community health center. Measurements and main results: The sample was comprised primarily of low-income racial/ethnic minorities; 393 patients were approached and 301 patients (77%) participated. The three measures had correlations between overall scores that ranged from 0.41 to 0.69 and correlations between similar domains from different measures that ranged from 0.42 to 0.59. For the HUI 3, any impairment most frequently was noted with pain, vision, cognition, and emotion. For the EQ-5D, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression were reported as impaired most often. Compared to published population scores, participants reported impairments with increased frequency and at a greater level. Conclusions: Participants demonstrated consistency with responses to similar types of items and correlations between related aspects of health were moderate to strong. Domains of health most often reported as impaired resembled those noted in national surveys. Despite differences in the structure of the measures, all three instruments capture information about decrements in broadly analogous domains of health.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Not all "quality-adjusted life years" are equal

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that utility elicitation methods used in the calculation of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) yield different results. It is not clear how these differences impact economic evaluations. METHODS: Using a mathematical model incorporating data on efficacy, costs, and utility values, we simulated the experiences of 100,000 hypothetical rheumatoid arthritis patients over 10 years (50,000 exposed to infliximab plus methotrexate [MTX] and 50,000 exposed to MTX alone). QALYs, were derived from the Health Utilities Index 2 and 3 (HUI2 and HUI3), the Short Form 6-D (SF-6D), and the Euroqol 5-D (EQ-5D). Incremental cost-utility ratios were determined using each instrument to calculate QALYs and the results were compared using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: Using the different utility measurement methods, the mean difference in QALYs between the infliximab plus MTX and MTX groups ranged from a high of 1.95 QALYs (95% CI=1.93-1.97) using the HUI3 to 0.89 QALYs (95% CI=0.88-0.91) using the SF-6D. Adopting the commonly cited value of society's willingness to pay for a QALY of $50,000, 91% of the simulations favored the cost utility of infliximab plus MTX when using the HUI3 to calculate QALYs. However, when using the EQ-5D, HUI2, or the SF-6D utility values to calculate QALYS, the proportion of simulations that favored the cost utility of infliximab were 63%, 45%, and 12%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Depending on the method for determining utility values used in the calculation of QALYs, very different incremental cost-utility ratios are generated.     

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.     

Is the Health Utilities Index responsive in total hip arthroplasty patients?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose is to examine the responsiveness of the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2), Mark 3 (HUI3), and other generic and disease-specific measures in osteoarthritis patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: Ninety patients (mean age=68.13; SD=8.15) on a waiting list for THA completed measures that included the standard gamble, HUI2, HUI3, SF-36, Harris Hip Scale, WOMAC, and MACTAR. before and after THA. Responsiveness statistics (effect size, standardized response mean, Guyatt's responsiveness statistic, paired-sample t-tests, and relative efficiency statistic) were calculated. RESULTS: The disease-specific measures were more responsive than the generic measures. Rankings of the degree of responsiveness varied depending on the responsiveness statistic used. CONCLUSIONS: Disease-specific measures are the most responsive in THA patients. However, the SF-36, HUI2, and HUI3 had summary scores and domain/attributes scores that were also responsive and provided additional information. Among the generic measures, HUI3 was the most responsive.     

A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common, chronic disease where health-related quality of life (HRQL) is one of the main goals of therapy. As such, instruments used to measure HRQL in RA must be able to discriminate across RA severity. The two basic categories of instruments used to measure HRQL are generic instruments and disease-specific instruments. Generic instruments can be further subdivided into preference-based measures which yield both single and multi-attribute utility values anchored at zero (death) and 1.00 (perfect health) as a measure of HRQL. The scores from these types of instruments can be integrated into cost-utility analyses as the weightings for quality adjusted life years. We assessed the construct validity of utility scores from four generic preference-based measures (the Health Utilities Index 2 and 3 (HUI2, HUI3), the EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D), and the Short Form 6-D (SF-6D) and disease specific measures (the Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RAQoL) and the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)) in a sample of 313 RA patients in British Columbia, Canada. We also estimated the minimally important differences (MID) for each of the measures. Generally, as anticipated, the disease-specific measures were better able to discriminate across groups with higher RA severity; however, utility scores from each of the scales also appeared to discriminate well across RA severity categories. The MID values agreed with those previously reported in the literature for the HUI2, SF-6D and the HAQ and provided new information for the HUI3, EQ-5D and the RAQoL. We conclude that the all of the preference-based utility measures that were evaluated appear to adequately discriminate across levels of RA severity.     

Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D

Background: The SF-6D and EQ-5D are both preference-based measures of health. Empirical work is required to determine what the smallest change is in utility scores that can be regarded as important and whether this change in utility value is constant across measures and conditions. Objectives: To use distribution and anchor-based methods to determine and compare the minimally important difference (MID) for the SF-6D and EQ-5D for various datasets. Methods: The SF-6D is scored on a 0.29–1.00 scale and the EQ-5D on a −0.59–1.00 scale, with a score of 1.00 on both, indicating ‘full health’. Patients were followed for a period of time, then asked, using question 2 of the SF-36 as our anchor, if their general health is much better (5), somewhat better (4), stayed the same (3), somewhat worse (2) or much worse (1) compared to the last time they were assessed. We considered patients whose global rating score was 4 or 2 as having experienced some change equivalent to the MID. This paper describes and compares the MID and standardised response mean (SRM) for the SF-6D and EQ-5D from eight longitudinal studies in 11 patient groups that used both instruments. Results: From the 11 reviewed studies, the MID for the SF-6D ranged from 0.011 to 0.097, mean 0.041. The corresponding SRMs ranged from 0.12 to 0.87, mean 0.39 and were mainly in the ‘small to moderate’ range using Cohen’s criteria, supporting the MID results. The mean MID for the EQ-5D was 0.074 (range −0.011–0.140) and the SRMs ranged from −0.05 to 0.43, mean 0.24. The mean MID for the EQ-5D was almost double that of the mean MID for the SF-6D. Conclusions: There is evidence that the MID for these two utility measures are not equal and differ in absolute values. The EQ-5D scale has approximately twice the range of the SF-6D scale. Therefore, the estimates of the MID for each scale appear to be proportionally equivalent in the context of the range of utility scores for each scale. Further empirical work is required to see whether or not this holds true for other utility measures, patient groups and populations.     

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.     

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.