How Well Do the Generic Multi-attribute Utility Instruments Incorporate Patient and Public Views Into Their Descriptive Systems?

  • Katherine J. StevensEmail author
Review Article


Multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs) are increasingly being used to generate utility data, which can be used to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). These QALY data can then be incorporated into a cost–utility analysis as part of an economic evaluation, to inform health care resource allocation decisions. Many health care decision-making bodies around the world, such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, require the use of generic MAUIs. Recently, there has been a call for greater input of patients into the development of patient-reported outcome measures, and this is now actively encouraged. By incorporating the views of patients, greater validity of an instrument is expected and it is more likely that patients will be able to self-complete the instrument, which is the ideal when obtaining information about a patient’s health-related quality of life. This paper examines the stages of MAUI development and the scope for patient and/or public involvement at each stage. The paper then reviews how much the main generic MAUIs have incorporated the views of patients/the public into the development of their descriptive systems at each of these stages, and the implications of this. The review finds that the majority of MAUIs had very little input from patients/the public. Instead, existing literature and/or the views of experts were used. If we wish to incorporate patient/public views into future development of MAUIs, qualitative methods are recommended.


Descriptive System Public Involvement Preference Weight Carer Experience Scale Generic MAUIs 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Funding and conflict of interest

There was no funding source for this paper. The author is the developer of the Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D), which is discussed in this paper.


  1. 1.
    Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Introduction to the measurement and valuation of health. In: Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation; chapter 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. p. 7–33.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    EuroQol. Accessed 23 Sept 2014.
  3. 3.
    Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, Goldsmith CH, Zhu Z, et al. Multi-attribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Med Care. 2002;40(2):113–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Modelling health state valuation data. In: Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation; chapter 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. p. 139–56.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Describing health. In: Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation; chapter 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. p. 55–76.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brazier JE, Rowen D, Mavranezouli I, Tsuchiya A, Young T, Yang Y, Barkham M, Ibbotson R. Developing and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition-specific measures (and other patient-based measures of outcome). Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(32):1–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Valuing health. In: Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation; chapter 5. Oxford: University Press; 2007. p. 83–117.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    McColl E. Developing questionnaires. In: Fayers P, Hays R, editors. Assessing quality of life in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. p. 9–23.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Food and Drug Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. 2009. Accessed 24 Sept 2014.
  11. 11.
    Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Leidy N, Martin ML, et al. Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report: part 1—eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health. 2011;14:967–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stevens K, Palfreyman S. The use of qualitative methods in developing the descriptive systems of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life for use in economic evaluation. Value Health. 2012;15(8):991–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smith SC, Lamping DL, Banerjee S, Harwood R, Foley B, Smith P, et al. Measurement of health-related quality of life for people with dementia: development of a new instrument (DEMQOL) and an evaluation of current methodology. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(10):1–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hunt SM, McEwen J, McKenna SP. The Nottingham Health Profile user’s manual. Manchester: Galen Research and Consultancy; 1981.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Young T, et al. The first stage of developing preference-based measures: constructing a health-state classification using Rasch analysis. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(2):253–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Richardson J, McKie J, Bariola E. Review and critique of health related multi attribute utility instruments. CHE Research Paper Series. Melbourne: Monash University; 2011; 64.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moodie M, Richardson J, Rankin B, Sinha K, Lezzi A. Predicting time trade-off health state valuations of adolescents in four Pacific countries using the AQoL-6D instrument. CHE Research Paper Series. Melbourne: Monash University; 2009; 43.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stevens K. Valuation of the child health utility 9D index. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(8):729–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gudex C. The descriptive system of the EuroQol instrument. In: Kind P, Brooks R, Rabin R, editors. EQ-5D concepts and methods: a developmental history. Dordrecht: Springer; 2005.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Dalen H, Williams A, Gudex C. Lay people’s evaluations of health: are there variations between different subgroups? J Epidemiol Commun Health. 1994;48:248–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gudex C. Are we lacking a dimension of energy in the EuroQol instrument? In: Bjork S, editor. EuroQol conference proceedings, Lund, October 1991. IHE Working Paper 92:2. Lund: Swedish Institute for Health Economics; 1992. pp. 61–72.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brooks R. Descriptive system. In: Brooks R, editor. The EuroQol group after 25 years. Dordrecht: Springer; 2013. p. 37–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Reenen M, Janssen B, Oppe M, Kreimeier S, Greiner W. EQ-5D-Y user guide. Accessed 12 Nov 2014.
  25. 25.
    Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G, et al. Development of the EQ-5DY: a child friendly version of the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:875–86.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ravens-Sieberer U, Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G, Burstrom K, Cavrini G, Devlin N, Egmar A, Gusi N, Herd M. Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the EQ-5D-Y: results from a multinational study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(6):887–97.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Longworth L, Yang Y, Young T, Mulhern B, Hernandez M, Mukuria C, Rowen D, Tosh J, Tsuchiya A, Evans P, Keetharuth A, Brazier J. Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: a systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18:9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Methods for obtaining health state values: generic preference-based measures of health and the alternatives. In: Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation; chapter 8. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. p. 175–239.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    QualityMetric Incorporated. SF tools. Accessed 13 Mar 2008.
  30. 30.
    Brazier JE, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based single index measure for health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ware JE, Kolinski M, Keller SD. How to score the SF-12 physical and mental health summaries: a user’s manual. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre; 1995.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Barr RD, Zhang Y, Wang QA. Multi-attribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Mark 2. Med Care. 1996;34(7):702–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cadman D, Goldsmith C, Torrance GW, et al. Development of a health status index for Ontario children. Hamilton: McMaster University; 1986.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    McCabe C. Estimating preference weights for a paediatric health state classification (HUI2) and a comparison of methods. PhD thesis. Sheffield: The University of Sheffield; May 2003.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sintonen H, Pekurinen M. A generic 15 dimensional measure of health-related quality of life (15D). J Soc Med. 1989;26:85–96.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sintonen H. The 15-D measure of health related quality of life: reliability, validity and sensitivity of its health state descriptive system. Centre for Health Programme Evaluation: Working Paper 41. Melbourne: Monash University; 1994.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sintonen H. The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):328–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kaplan RM, Anderson JP. The Quality of Well-Being scale: rationale for a single quality of life index. In: Walker SR, Rosse RM, editors. Quality of life: assessment and application. London: MTP Press; 1988. p. 51–77.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stevens KJ. Working with children to develop dimensions for a preference-based, generic, pediatric health-related quality-of-life measure. Qual Health Res. 2010;20:340–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stevens KJ. Developing a descriptive system for a new preference-based measure of health-related quality of life for children. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(8):1105–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stevens KJ. Assessing the performance of a new generic measure of health related quality of life for children and refining it for use in health state valuation. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(3):157–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Farnik M, Pierzchala W. Instrument development and evaluation for patient related outcome assessments. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2012;3:1–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Brod M, Tesler L, Christensen T. Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(9):1263–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    UK Department of Health. Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS. Accessed 24 Sept 2014.
  45. 45.
    Al-Janabi H, Flynn T, Coast J. Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:167–76.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Grewal I, Lewis J, Flynn T, Brown J, Bond J, Coast J. Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: preferences or capabilities? Soc Sci Med. 2006;62:1891–901.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Keeley T, Al-Janabi H, Lorgelly P, Coast J. A qualitative assessment of the content validity of the ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-5L and their appropriateness for use in health research. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e85287.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Horwood J, Sutton E, Coast J. Evaluating the face validity of the ICECAP-O capabilities measure: a “think-aloud” study with hip and knee arthroplasty patients. Appl Res Qual Life. 2014;9(3):667–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Al-Janabi H, Coast J, Flynn TN. What do people value when they provide unpaid care? A meta-ethnography with interview follow-up. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67:111–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR)The University of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations