Health Care Management Science

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 41–51 | Cite as

Development of a Preference-Weighted Health Status Classification System in France: The Health Utilities Index 3

  • Catherine Le GalèsEmail author
  • Catherine Buron
  • Nathalie Costet
  • Sophia Rosman
  • Pr. Gérard Slama


The Health Utilities Index is a generic multiattribute preference-based system for assessing health-related quality of life, devised by Torrance et al. It is being used in cost-effectiveness evaluations in North America and in international multicentre studies but was not available in France. Following adaptation of the HUI3 classification in France, the purpose of the reported investigation was to derive French preference weights. This article provides a reminder of the theoretical foundations used to model the multiattribute utility function. Within this framework, a multiattribute multiplicative aggregate utility function was constructed in accordance with the explicitly decomposed approach. The study took place in June 1999 over a sample of 365 persons from the French general population, aged between 20 and 65, and not suffering from any chronic or incapacitating illness. The recruitment procedure was based upon a random selection of individuals, using the phone book. Interviews took place in the homes of the interviewees. The methods of revelation (VAS and SG) were applied by setting the value of the best possible state of the HUI3 a priori at 1, and leaving a choice between two states (worst possible state, death) for 0. The aggregated individuals (person-mean and median) were calculated and the multiplicative utility functions constructed. A comparison of the calculated utilities with the observed ones provides a primary indicator of the validity of the person-mean or median functions constructed. The slight absolute differences obtained between observed and calculated utilities and the low RMSE scores lead us towards a favourable conclusion.


Utility Function Health Utility Index Aggregate Utility Health Status Classification International Multicentre Study 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    G. Ardine deWits, J. Busschbach and F. de Charro, Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count? Health Economics 9 (2000) 109-126.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    J. Brazier and M. Deverill, A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics, Health Economics 8 (1999) 41-51.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    C. Buron, Utilité et préférences en univers certain et en univers risqué: une application de la théorie de l'utilité multiattribut en économie de la santé Thèse de doctorat en Science Economique, Université Panthéon-Assas (Paris II), soutenue le 18 janvier 1999.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    W.B. Carter, R.A. Bobitt, M. Bergner and B.S. Gibson, Validation of interval scaling: The sickness impact profile, Health Services Research 11(4) (1976) 516-528.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    N. Costet, C. Le Galès, C. Buron, K. Kinkor, M. Mesbah, J. Chwalow, the clinical and economic working groups and G. Slama, French crosscultural adaptation of the Health Utilities Indexes Mark 2 (HUI2) and 3 (HUI3) classification systems, Quality of Life Research 7(3) (1998) 245-256.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    P. Dolan, Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states, Medical Care 35(11) (1997) 1095-1108.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    P. Dolan, Aggregating health states valuations, Journal of Health Services Research 2(3) (1997) 160-165.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    P. Dolan, C. Gudex, P. Kind and A. Williams, A social tariff for EuroQol: Results from a UK general population survey, Discussion Paper 138, Center for Health Economics, University of York, York (1975).Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    J.S. Dyer, W. Farrell and P. Bradley, Utility functions for test performance, Management Sciences 20 (1973) 507-519.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    J.S. Dyer and R.A. Sarin, Measurable multiattribute value functions, Operations Research 24 (1979) 220-243.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    J.S. Dyer and R.A. Sarin, Relative risk aversion, Management Sciences 28(8) (1982) 875-886.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    L. Eeckhoudt, Expected utility theory — Is it normative or simply “practical”? Medical Decision Making 16(1) (1996) 12-13.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    M.L. Essink-Bot, M.E. Stoudhard and G.J. Bonsel, Generalizability of valuations on health states collected with the EuroQol questionnaire, Health Economics 2 (1993) 237-246.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    P.H. Farquhar, A survey of multi-attribute utility theory and application, TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences 6 (1977) 59-89.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    G.W. Fischer, Utility models for multiple objective decisions: Do they accurately represent human preferences? Decision Sciences 10(3) (1979) 451-479.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    P.C. Fishburn, Independence in utility theory with whole product sets, Operations Research 13 (1965) 28-45.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    P.C. Fishburn and G. Kochenberger, Two-piece Von Neumann— Morgenstern utility functions, Decision Sciences 10 (1979) 503-518.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    W. Furlong, D. Feeny, G.W. Torrance, C.H. Goldsmith, S. DePauw, Z. Zhu and M. Boyle, Multiplicative multi-attribute utility function for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) System: A technical report, Working paper series no98-11, CHEPA, McMaster University, Hamilton (1998).Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    M.R. Gold, J.E. Siegel, L.B. Russel and M.C. Weinstein, eds., Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine (Oxford University Press, New York, 1996).Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    J.C. Harsanyi, Cardinal utility in welfare economics and in the theory of risk taking, Journal of Political Economy 61 (1953) 434-435.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    J.C. Harsanyi, Cardinal welfare, individual ethics and interpersonal comparison of utility, Journal of Political Economy 63 (1955) 309-321.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Health Utilities Group (2000): htm.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    J.A. Johnson, S.J. Coons, A. Ergo and G. Szava-Kovats, Valuation of EuroQol (EQ-5D) health states in an Adult US sample, PharmacoEconomics 13(4) (1998) 421-433.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    R.M. Kaplan, J.W. Bush and C.C. Berry, The reliability, stability and generalisability of a health status index, Social Statistics Section. American Statistical Association Proceedings (1978) 704-709.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    R.L. Keeney, Utility independence and preferences for multiattributed consequences, Operations Research 19 (1971) 875-893.Google Scholar
  26. 26]
    R.L. Keeney, Multiplicative utility functions, Operations Research 22 (1974) 22-34.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    R.L. Keeney and H. Raïffa, Decision with Multiple Objectives (Wiley, New York, 1976).Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    L.R. Keller, An empirical investigation of relative risk aversion, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC 15(4) (1985) 475-482.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    C. Le Galès, N. Costet, C. Buron and G. Slama, Développement d'un indicateur d'états de santé pondéré par les préférences, Working paper, CHEAR, INSERM U537, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre (2000).Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    C. Le Galès, N. Costet, J.C. Gentet, C. Kalifa, D. Frappaz, C. Edan, E. Sariban, D. Plantaz and F. Doz, Cross-cultural adaptation of a health status classification in children with cancer. First results of the French adaptation of the HUI2 and 3, International Journal of Cancer 12 (1999) 112-118.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    H.A. Llewellyn-Thomas, H.J. Sutherland et al., Methodological issues in obtaining values for health states, Medical Care 22 (1984) 543-552.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    A. Mehrez and A. Gafni, An empirical evaluation of two assessment methods for utility measurement for life years, Socio-Economic Planification Science 21(6) (1987) 371-375.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    E. Nord, EuroQol: health-related quality of life measurement. Valuation of health states by the general public in Norway, Health Policy 18 (1991) 25-36.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    A.M. O'Connor, N.F. Boyd, P. Warde and Stolbach, Eliciting preferences for alternative drug therapies in oncology: Influence of treatment outcome description, elicitation technique and treatment experience on preferences, Journal of Chronic Diseases 40 (1987) 811-818.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    D.L. Patrick and Y. Chiang, eds., Health outcomes methodology: Symposium Proceedings, Medical Care 29(9 Suppl. II) (2000).Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    D.L. Patrick, H.E. Starks, K.C. Cain, R.F. Uhlmann and R.A. Pearlman, Measuring preferences for health states worse than death, Medical Decision Making 14(1) (1994) 9-18.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    J.W. Pratt, Risk aversion in the small and in the large, Econometrica 32 (1964) 122-136.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    J.L. Read, R.J. Quinn, D.M. Berwick, H.V. Fineberg and M.C. Weinstein, Preferences for health outcomes. Comparison of assessment methods, Medical Decision Making 4(3) (1984) 315-329.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    D.A. Revicki, N.K. Leidy, F. Brennan-Diemer, C. Thompson and A. Togias, Development and preliminary validation of the multiattribute Rhinitis Symptom Utility Index, Quality of Life Research 7(8) (1998) 693-702.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    R. Rosser and P. Kind, A scale of valuations of states of illness: Is there a social consensus? International Journal Epidemiology 7(4) (1978) 347-358.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    G.W. Torrance, Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques, Socio-Economic Planification Science 10 (1976) 129-136.Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    G.W. Torrance, W. Furlong, D. Feeny and M. Boyle, Multiattribute preference function. Health Utility Index, PharmacoEconomics 7(6) (1995) 503-520.Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    G.W. Torrance, D. Feeny, W. Furlong, R.D. Barr, Y. Zhang and Q. Wang, Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2, Medical Care 34(7) (1996) 702-722.Google Scholar
  44. [44]
    J. Von Neumann and O. Morgenstern, Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour, 2nd edn. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1947) (1944, 1st edn.).Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    A.D. Wolfson, A.J. Sinclair, C. Bombardier and A. Mc Geer, Preference measurements for functional status in stroke patients: Interrater and intertechnique comparaisons, in: Values and Long Term Care, eds. R.L. Kane and R.A. Kane (Lexington Books, Lexington, 1982).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catherine Le Galès
    • 1
    Email author
  • Catherine Buron
    • 1
  • Nathalie Costet
    • 1
  • Sophia Rosman
    • 1
  • Pr. Gérard Slama
    • 2
  1. 1.CHEAR, INSERM U537Le Kremlin-BicêtreFrance
  2. 2.Hôtel-Dieu, Service de DiabètologieParisFrance

Personalised recommendations