OBJECTIVE: This article compares preference-based utilities from the multiattribute utility instrument 15D with those derived from the EQ-5D and the Short Form 36 (SF-6D) in patients with HIV/AIDS. In particular, we wanted to examine if the finer descriptive system of the 15D would result in better discriminative capacity or responsiveness. METHODS: In a prospective observational study of 60 Norwegian patients with HIV/AIDS from two hospitals, the authors compared scores, assessed associations with disease staging systems, and assessed test-retest reliability and responsiveness of the instruments. RESULTS: On average, the 15D gave higher utility scores than the other two measures, the mean utility scores were: 15D--0.86, SF-6D--0.73, and EQ-5D Index--0.77. Test-retest reliability was acceptable for all measures, with intraclass correlation coefficients between 0.78 and 0.94. The correlation between scores of the 3 scales was substantial (p = 0.74-0.80). There was no major difference in responsiveness between the measures. CONCLUSIONS: The different measures gave different utility values in this sample of patients with HIV/AIDS, although many of the measurement properties were similar. There was no evidence for better discriminative capacity or responsiveness for the 15D, than for the two other multiattribute measures.
OBJECTIVE: This article compares preference-based utilities from the multiattribute utility instrument 15D with those derived from the EQ-5D and the Short Form 36 (SF-6D) in patients with HIV/AIDS. In particular, we wanted to examine if the finer descriptive system of the 15D would result in better discriminative capacity or responsiveness. METHODS: In a prospective observational study of 60 Norwegian patients with HIV/AIDS from two hospitals, the authors compared scores, assessed associations with disease staging systems, and assessed test-retest reliability and responsiveness of the instruments. RESULTS: On average, the 15D gave higher utility scores than the other two measures, the mean utility scores were: 15D--0.86, SF-6D--0.73, and EQ-5D Index--0.77. Test-retest reliability was acceptable for all measures, with intraclass correlation coefficients between 0.78 and 0.94. The correlation between scores of the 3 scales was substantial (p = 0.74-0.80). There was no major difference in responsiveness between the measures. CONCLUSIONS: The different measures gave different utility values in this sample of patients with HIV/AIDS, although many of the measurement properties were similar. There was no evidence for better discriminative capacity or responsiveness for the 15D, than for the two other multiattribute measures.
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: Bruce R Schackman; Sue J Goldie; Kenneth A Freedberg; Elena Losina; John Brazier; Milton C Weinstein Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2002 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Oriol Cunillera; Ricard Tresserras; Luis Rajmil; Gemma Vilagut; Pilar Brugulat; Mike Herdman; Anna Mompart; Antonia Medina; Yolanda Pardo; Jordi Alonso; John Brazier; Montse Ferrer Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-03-31 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