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.

[1]  S. Wilson Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes , 1987 .

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

[3]  W F Lawrence,et al.  Predicting Quality of Well-being Scores from the SF-36 , 1997, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[4]  M. Boyle,et al.  Multiattribute and Single‐Attribute Utility Functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 System , 2002, Medical care.

[5]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs , 1976 .

[6]  N. Sengupta,et al.  Evaluating Quality-Adjusted Life Years , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[7]  M. Drummond Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies , 2001, Annals of medicine.

[8]  J. Ware SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide , 2003 .

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

[10]  Ware J.E.Jr.,et al.  THE MOS 36- ITEM SHORT FORM HEALTH SURVEY (SF- 36) CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND ITEM SELECTION , 1992 .

[11]  J. Brazier,et al.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. , 2002, Journal of health economics.

[12]  M. Drummond,et al.  Health Care Technology: Effectiveness, Efficiency and Public Policy@@@Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes , 1988 .

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

[14]  C. Sherbourne,et al.  The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) , 1992 .

[15]  E. Fain,et al.  The defibrillator in acute myocardial infarction trial (DINAMIT): study protocol. , 2000, American heart journal.

[16]  H. Raiffa,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives , 1993 .

[17]  Paul Kind,et al.  Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey , 1998, BMJ.

[18]  J. Brazier,et al.  Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. , 1998, Journal of clinical epidemiology.