Literature DB >> 15651537

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

David Feeny1, Lieling Wu, Ken Eng.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15651537     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-004-6189-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  27 in total

1.  The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF-36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain.

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

2.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36.

Authors:  John Brazier; Jennifer Roberts; Mark Deverill
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 3.  EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group.

Authors:  R Rabin; F de Charro
Journal:  Ann Med       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 4.709

Review 4.  A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life.

Authors:  Jacek A Kopec; Kevin D Willison
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Is the Health Utilities Index valid in total hip arthroplasty patients?

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

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

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

7.  Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation.

Authors:  R A Deyo; P Diehr; D L Patrick
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1991-08

8.  Health Utilities Index Mark 3: evidence of construct validity for stroke and arthritis in a population health survey.

Authors:  P Grootendorst; D Feeny; W Furlong
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Health-related quality of life and mobility of patients awaiting elective total hip arthroplasty: a prospective study.

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

10.  Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments.

Authors:  Barbara Conner-Spady; Maria E Suarez-Almazor
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  27 in total

1.  Agreement about identifying patients who change over time: cautionary results in cataract and heart failure patients.

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

2.  Health values of patients coinfected with HIV/hepatitis C: are two viruses worse than one?

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

3.  Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making.

Authors:  Christine M McDonough; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Reliability, validity, and minimally important differences of the SF-6D in systemic sclerosis.

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

5.  Validity and responsiveness of generic preference-based HRQOL instruments in chronic epilepsy.

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

6.  A longitudinal comparison of 5 preference-weighted health state classification systems in persons with intervertebral disk herniation.

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

7.  How consistent are health utility values?

Authors:  Pedro L Ferreira; Lara N Ferreira; Luis N Pereira
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-08-08       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 8.  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

9.  An assessment of the effects of Iyengar yoga practice on the health-related quality of life of patients with chronic respiratory diseases: a pilot study.

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

10.  Comparing preference-based quality-of-life measures: results from rehabilitation patients with musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or psychosomatic disorders.

Authors:  Joern Moock; Thomas Kohlmann
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-02-21       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.