Literature DB >> 14614995

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

Chris Blanchard1, David Feeny, Jeffrey L Mahon, Robert Bourne, Cecil Rorabeck, Larry Stitt, Susan Webster-Bogaert.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14614995     DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00203-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  8 in total

1.  Measuring health status and decline in at-risk seniors residing in the community using the Health Utilities Index Mark 2.

Authors:  Jenny X Zhang; Jennifer D Walker; Walter P Wodchis; David B Hogan; David H Feeny; Colleen J Maxwell
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-06-22       Impact factor: 4.147

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

Authors:  Carlo A Marra; Amir A Rashidi; Daphne Guh; Jacek A Kopec; Michal Abrahamowicz; John M Esdaile; John E Brazier; Paul R Fortin; Aslam H Anis
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Comparing short form 6D, standard gamble, and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 utility scores: results from total hip arthroplasty patients.

Authors:  David Feeny; Lieling Wu; Ken Eng
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 4.  A review of health-utility data for osteoarthritis: implications for clinical trial-based evaluation.

Authors:  Hirsch S Ruchlin; Ralph P Insinga
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Construct validity for the Health Utilities Index in a sleep center.

Authors:  Kevin C Welch; Steven M Scharf
Journal:  Sleep Breath       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.816

6.  The feasibility and responsiveness of the health utilities index in patients with early-stage breast cancer: a prospective longitudinal study.

Authors:  Peter J Lovrics; Sylvie D Cornacchi; Francesco Barnabi; Tim Whelan; Charles H Goldsmith
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-01-26       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Responsiveness differences in outcome instruments after revision hip arthroplasty: what are the implications?

Authors:  Jasvinder A Singh
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2011-05-23       Impact factor: 2.362

8.  The Health Utilities Index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications.

Authors:  John Horsman; William Furlong; David Feeny; George Torrance
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2003-10-16       Impact factor: 3.186

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.