Multiattribute and Single‐Attribute Utility Functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 System

Background. The Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) is a generic multiattribute preference‐based measure of health status and health‐related quality of life that is widely used as an outcome measure in clinical studies, in population health surveys, in the estimation of quality‐adjusted life years, and in economic evaluations. HUI3 consists of eight attributes (or dimensions) of health status: vision, hearing, speech, ambulation, dexterity, emotion, cognition, and pain with 5 or 6 levels per attribute, varying from highly impaired to normal. Objectives. The objectives are to present a multiattribute utility function and eight single‐attribute utility functions for the HUI3 system based on community preferences. Study Design. Two preference surveys were conducted. One, the modeling survey, collected preference scores for the estimation of the utility functions. The other, the direct survey, provided independent scores to assess the predictive validity of the utility functions. Measures. Preference measures included value scores obtained on the Feeling Thermometer and standard gamble utility scores obtained using the Chance Board. Respondents. A random sample of the general population (≥16 years of age) in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Results. Estimates were obtained for eight single‐attribute utility functions and an overall multiattribute utility function. The intraclass correlation coefficient between directly measured utility scores and scores generated by the multiattribute function for 73 health states was 0.88. Conclusions. The HUI3 scoring function has strong theoretical and empirical foundations. It performs well in predicting directly measured scores. The HUI3 system provides a practical way to obtain utility scores based on community preferences.

[1]  R. Kaplan Health status and health policy: Quality of life in health care evaluation and resource allocation , 1994, Quality of Life Research.

[2]  Christopher McCabe,et al.  Visual Analogue Scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? , 2004 .

[3]  Nicole A. Lazar,et al.  Statistical Analysis With Missing Data , 2003, Technometrics.

[4]  D. Feeny,et al.  Visual Analog Scales , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[5]  D. Feeny,et al.  The Health Utilities Index (HUI®) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies , 2001, Annals of medicine.

[6]  D. Feeny,et al.  A utility approach to the assessment of health-related quality of life. , 2000, Medical care.

[7]  M. Boyle,et al.  Multiplicative Multi-Attribute Utility Function for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) System: A Technical Report , 1998 .

[8]  M C Weinstein,et al.  Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies. Recommendations from the panel on cost effectiveness in health and medicine. Panel on cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. , 1997, PharmacoEconomics.

[9]  M. Gold Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine , 2016 .

[10]  D Menon,et al.  Canada's new guidelines for the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. , 1996, Medical care.

[11]  J. Pater Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials , 1996 .

[12]  E. Orav,et al.  Are differences in practitioners' acceptance of a quality assurance intervention related to their performance? , 1996, Medical care.

[13]  D. Feeny,et al.  Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. , 1996, Medical care.

[14]  B. Spilker,et al.  Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials , 1996 .

[15]  G W Torrance,et al.  Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Utilities Index. , 1995, PharmacoEconomics.

[16]  G W Torrance,et al.  Multi-attribute preference functions. Health Utilities Index. , 1995, PharmacoEconomics.

[17]  F. B. Vernadat,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1994 .

[18]  D Menon,et al.  Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. , 1992, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[19]  David Feeny,et al.  Guide to design and development of health-state utility instrumentation , 1992 .

[20]  G. Torrance Multi-attribute preference functions for a comprehensive health status classification system , 1992 .

[21]  R A Deyo,et al.  Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. , 1991, Controlled clinical trials.

[22]  D. Streiner,et al.  Health Measurement Scales: A practical guide to thier development and use , 1989 .

[23]  D. Feeny,et al.  Utilities and Quality-Adjusted Life Years , 1989, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[24]  G W Torrance,et al.  Incorporating Utility-Based Quality-of-Life Assessment Measures in Clinical Trials: Two Examples , 1989, Medical care.

[25]  R. Keeney Building models of values , 1988 .

[26]  G. Torrance Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. , 1986, Journal of health economics.

[27]  George W. Torrance,et al.  Application of Multi-Attribute Utility Theory to Measure Social Preferences for Health States , 1982, Oper. Res..

[28]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[29]  S. Vajda,et al.  GAMES AND DECISIONS; INTRODUCTION AND CRITICAL SURVEY. , 1958 .

[30]  K. A. Brownlee,et al.  Fractional Factorial Experiment Designs for Factors at Two Levels. , 1958 .

[31]  E. Rowland Theory of Games and Economic Behavior , 1946, Nature.