A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments

As part of the validation of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument comparisons were made between five multiattribute utility (MAU) instruments, each purporting to measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL). These were the AQoL, the Canadian Health Utilities Index (HUI) 3, the Finnish 15D, the EQ-5D (formerly the EuroQoL) and the SF6D (derived from the SF-36). The paper compares absolute utility scores, instrument sensitivity, and incremental differences in measured utility between different instruments predicted by different individuals. The AQoL predicted utilities are similar to those from the HUI3 and EQ-5D. By contrast the 15D and SF6D predict systematically higher utilities, and the differences between individuals are significantly smaller. There is some evidence that the AQoL has greater sensitivity to health states than other instruments. It is concluded that at present no single MAU instrument can claim to be the ‘gold standard’, and that researchers should select an instrument sensitive to the health states they are investigating. Caution should be exercised in treating any of the instrument scores as representing a trade-off between length of life and HRQoL.

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

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

[3]  A. Williams.  EuroQol : a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life , 1990 .

[4]  Elazar J. Pedhazur,et al.  Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach , 1994 .

[5]  H. Sintonen,et al.  A fifteen-dimensional measure of health-related quality of life (15D) and its applications , 1993 .

[6]  S. Walker,et al.  Quality of Life Assessment: Key Issues in the 1990s , 1993, Springer Netherlands.

[7]  B. Ford.  International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps , 1984, Releve epidemiologique hebdomadaire.

[8]  Rachel M. Rosser,et al.  A health index and output measure , 1993 .

[9]  J. Richardson,et al.  Cost utility analysis: what should be measured? , 1994, Social science & medicine.

[10]  H. Sintonen.  The 15-D Measure of Health Related Quality of Life: Reliability, Validity and Sensitivity of its Health State Descriptive System , 1994 .

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

[12]  G. Hawthorne,et al.  An Australian MAU/QALY Instrument: Rationale and Preliminary Results , 1995 .

[13]  P. Dolan,et al.  Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. , 1996, Journal of health economics.

[14]  A J Morales,et al.  Quality of Life Assessment , 1996, Seminars in reproductive endocrinology.

[15]  G. Hawthorne,et al.  The Australian Multi-attribute Utility (AMAU) construction and Initial Evaluation , 1996 .

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

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

[18]  M. Power,et al.  Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF Quality of Life Assessment , 1998 .

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

[20]  G. Hawthorne,et al.  Negative Utility Scores and Evaluating the AQoL All Worst Health State , 2001 .

[21]  Ad J. J. M. Vingerhoets,et al.  Quality of life assessment , 2001 .

[22]  J. Richardson,et al.  Construction and Utility Scaling of the Assessment of Quality of Life ( AQoL ) Instrument , 2001 .

[23]  G. Hawthorne,et al.  Health-related quality-of-life outcomes from adult cochlear implantation: a cross-sectional survey , 2001, Cochlear implants international.

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