Literature DB >> 8676608

Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2.

G W Torrance1, D H Feeny, W J Furlong, R D Barr, Y Zhang, Q Wang.   

Abstract

The Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI:2) is a generic multiattribute, preference-based system for assessing health-related quality of life. Health Utilities Index Mark 2 consists of two components: a seven-attribute health status classification system and a scoring formula. The seven attributes are sensation, mobility, emotion, cognition, self-care, pain, and fertility. A random sample of general population parents were interviewed to determine cardinal preferences for the health states in the system. The health states were defined as lasting for a 60-year lifetime, starting at age 10. Values were measured using visual analogue scaling. Utilities were measured using a standard gamble technique. A scoring formula is provided, based on a multiplicative multiattribute utility function from the responses of 194 subjects. The utility scores are death-anchored (death = 0.0) and form an interval scale. Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and its utility scores can be useful to other researchers in a wide variety of settings who wish to document health status and assign preference scores.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8676608     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199607000-00004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  234 in total

1.  The use of the Tobit model for analyzing measures of health status.

Authors:  P C Austin; M Escobar; J A Kopec
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Distinguishing between quality of life and health status in quality of life research: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  K W Smith; N E Avis; S F Assmann
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  The effect of individually assessed preference weights on the relationship between holistic utilities and nonpreference-based assessment.

Authors:  S J Jansen; A M Stiggelbout; M A Nooij; J Kievit
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Simulated effect of tobacco tax variation on population health in California.

Authors:  R M Kaplan; C F Ake; S L Emery; A M Navarro
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 5.  Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques.

Authors:  C Green; J Brazier; M Deverill
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Health-related quality of life research and the capability approach of Amartya Sen.

Authors:  M A Verkerk; J J Busschbach; E D Karssing
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Measuring Quality of Live in Disorders of Sleep and Breathing.

Authors:  Marlene Reimer; W. Ward Flemons
Journal:  Sleep Breath       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 2.816

Review 8.  Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: a general approach with illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II.

Authors:  G Samsa; D Edelman; M L Rothman; G R Williams; J Lipscomb; D Matchar
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Accuracy of a decision aid for advance care planning: simulated end-of-life decision making.

Authors:  Benjamin H Levi; Steven R Heverley; Michael J Green
Journal:  J Clin Ethics       Date:  2011

10.  Disease-modifying drugs for knee osteoarthritis: can they be cost-effective?

Authors:  E Losina; M E Daigle; L G Suter; D J Hunter; D H Solomon; R P Walensky; J M Jordan; S A Burbine; A D Paltiel; J N Katz
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2013-02-04       Impact factor: 6.576

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.