David Feeny1, Lieling Wu, Ken Eng. 1. Institute of Health Economics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. dfeeny@pharmacy.ualberta.ca
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: 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 3 months 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.
OBJECTIVES: 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 osteoarthritispatients referred for total hip arthroplasty (THA) were evaluated at the time of referral and followed until 3 months 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.
Authors: William Hollingworth; Richard A Deyo; Sean D Sullivan; Scott S Emerson; Darryl T Gray; Jeffrey G Jarvik Journal: Health Econ Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Chris Blanchard; David Feeny; Jeffrey L Mahon; Robert Bourne; Cecil Rorabeck; Larry Stitt; Susan Webster-Bogaert Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Chris Blanchard; David Feeny; Jeffrey L Mahon; Robert Bourne; Cecil Rorabeck; Larry Stitt; Susan Webster-Bogaert Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Jeffrey L Mahon; Robert B Bourne; Cecil H Rorabeck; David H Feeny; Larry Stitt; Susan Webster-Bogaert Journal: CMAJ Date: 2002-11-12 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: David Feeny; Karen Spritzer; Ron D Hays; Honghu Liu; Theodore G Ganiats; Robert M Kaplan; Mari Palta; Dennis G Fryback Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Joseph M Mrus; Kenneth E Sherman; Anthony C Leonard; Susan N Sherman; Karen L Mandell; Joel Tsevat Journal: Med Care Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Dinesh Khanna; Daniel E Furst; Weng Kee Wong; Joel Tsevat; Philip J Clements; Grace S Park; Arnold E Postlethwaite; Mansoor Ahmed; Shaari Ginsburg; Ron D Hays Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2007-04-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: J T Langfitt; B G Vickrey; M P McDermott; S Messing; A T Berg; S S Spencer; M R Sperling; C W Bazil; S Shinnar Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Christine M McDonough; Tor D Tosteson; Anna N A Tosteson; Alan M Jette; Margaret R Grove; James N Weinstein Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2010-11-22 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Maria Jose Santana; Julia S-Parrilla; Judith Mirus; Martha Loadman; Dale C Lien; David Feeny Journal: Can Respir J Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.409