Jason R Guertin1, David Feeny2, Jean-Eric Tarride2. 1. Department of Social and Preventive Medicine (Guertin), Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval; Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec - Université Laval (Guertin), Axe Santé des Populations et Pratiques Optimales en Santé, Hôpital du Saint-Sacrement, Québec, Que.; Department of Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences (Feeny), Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (Feeny, Tarride) and Department of Health Research Methods, Faculty of Health Sciences (Tarride), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Health Utilities Incorporated (Feeny), Dundas, Ont.; Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (Tarride), Research Institute of St. Joe's Hamilton, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, Ont. jason.guertin@fmed.ulaval.ca. 2. Department of Social and Preventive Medicine (Guertin), Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval; Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec - Université Laval (Guertin), Axe Santé des Populations et Pratiques Optimales en Santé, Hôpital du Saint-Sacrement, Québec, Que.; Department of Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences (Feeny), Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (Feeny, Tarride) and Department of Health Research Methods, Faculty of Health Sciences (Tarride), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Health Utilities Incorporated (Feeny), Dundas, Ont.; Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (Tarride), Research Institute of St. Joe's Hamilton, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, Ont.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although many Canadian studies have provided disease-specific or patient group-specific utility scores, the utility score norms currently available for the general Canadian population are outdated. Canadian guideline recommendations for the economic evaluation of health technologies advocate for utilities reflecting those of the general population and for stratified analyses when results are heterogeneous; as such, there is also a need for age-, sex- and jurisdiction-specific utility score norms. METHODS: We used data from the 2013-2014 Canadian Community Health Survey. We used the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 to calculate utility scores. We estimated means (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) and medians (with interquartile ranges [IQRs]) for utility scores. In addition to Canadian-level measures, we stratified all utility score norms by respondents' age, sex, and province or territory of residence. We weighted respondents' answers and computed 95% CIs using sampling weights and bootstrap weights provided by Statistics Canada to extrapolate the study findings to the Canadian population. RESULTS: Respondents to the 2013-2014 Canadian Community Health Survey represented 30 014 589 community-dwelling Canadians 12 years of age and older (98% of the Canadian population); half of the respondents were female (50.6%), and the weighted average age was 44.8 (95% CI 44.7-44.9) years. The mean and median self-reported utility scores for Canadians were estimated at 0.863 (95% CI 0.861-0.865) and 0.927 (IQR 0.838-0.972), respectively. INTERPRETATION: This study provides utility score norms for several age-, sex-and jurisdiction-specific strata in Canada. These results will be useful for future cost-utility analyses and could serve as benchmark values for comparisons with future studies.
BACKGROUND: Although many Canadian studies have provided disease-specific or patient group-specific utility scores, the utility score norms currently available for the general Canadian population are outdated. Canadian guideline recommendations for the economic evaluation of health technologies advocate for utilities reflecting those of the general population and for stratified analyses when results are heterogeneous; as such, there is also a need for age-, sex- and jurisdiction-specific utility score norms. METHODS: We used data from the 2013-2014 Canadian Community Health Survey. We used the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 to calculate utility scores. We estimated means (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) and medians (with interquartile ranges [IQRs]) for utility scores. In addition to Canadian-level measures, we stratified all utility score norms by respondents' age, sex, and province or territory of residence. We weighted respondents' answers and computed 95% CIs using sampling weights and bootstrap weights provided by Statistics Canada to extrapolate the study findings to the Canadian population. RESULTS: Respondents to the 2013-2014 Canadian Community Health Survey represented 30 014 589 community-dwelling Canadians 12 years of age and older (98% of the Canadian population); half of the respondents were female (50.6%), and the weighted average age was 44.8 (95% CI 44.7-44.9) years. The mean and median self-reported utility scores for Canadians were estimated at 0.863 (95% CI 0.861-0.865) and 0.927 (IQR 0.838-0.972), respectively. INTERPRETATION: This study provides utility score norms for several age-, sex-and jurisdiction-specific strata in Canada. These results will be useful for future cost-utility analyses and could serve as benchmark values for comparisons with future studies.
Authors: David Feeny; William Furlong; George W Torrance; Charles H Goldsmith; Zenglong Zhu; Sonja DePauw; Margaret Denton; Michael Boyle Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Mark S Kaplan; Jean-Marie Berthelot; David Feeny; Bentson H McFarland; Saeeda Khan; Heather Orpana Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Dennis G Fryback; Nancy Cross Dunham; Mari Palta; Janel Hanmer; Jennifer Buechner; Dasha Cherepanov; Shani A Herrington; Ron D Hays; Robert M Kaplan; Theodore G Ganiats; David Feeny; Paul Kind Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jean-Eric Tarride; Natasha Burke; Matthias Bischof; Robert B Hopkins; Linda Goeree; Kaitryn Campbell; Feng Xie; Daria O'Reilly; Ron Goeree Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2010-01-27 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Kate M Johnson; Mohsen Sadatsafavi; Amin Adibi; Larry Lynd; Mark Harrison; Hamid Tavakoli; Don D Sin; Stirling Bryan Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 2.561
Authors: William K Evans; Cindy L Gauvreau; William M Flanagan; Saima Memon; Jean Hai Ein Yong; John R Goffin; Natalie R Fitzgerald; Michael Wolfson; Anthony B Miller Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2020-09-22
Authors: Ron Goeree; Natasha Burke; Manon Jobin; Jacques P Brown; Donna Lawrence; Björn Stollenwerk; Damon Willems; Ben Johnson Journal: Arch Osteoporos Date: 2022-04-26 Impact factor: 2.879
Authors: Jean H E Yong; Claude Nadeau; William M Flanagan; Andrew J Coldman; Keiko Asakawa; Rochelle Garner; Natalie Fitzgerald; Martin J Yaffe; Anthony B Miller Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 3.677