Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Adjusting distributions of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 utility scores of health-related quality of life

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) is a multi-dimensional, preference-based measure of health status and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). HUI3 scores correlate strongly with self-ratings of health status and functional disability and vary according to age, gender and occupation. In comparative studies relating to HRQoL, it is necessary to carry out adjusted comparison of the health status of the different groups, taking into account unbalanced distribution of confounding variables. This paper describes a stratification method to adjust the distributions of HUI3 scores. This method provides a graphical representation of adjusted distribution of HUI3, which can also be used to adjust other HRQoL scores. Cross-sectional data from the 1998/1999 National Population Health Survey (NPHS) in Canada were used to verify the proposed method. Male agriculture workers and male construction workers in Canada had quite different age distributions but similar HUI3 distributions. After adjusting the age distribution of the construction group to match the distribution of agriculture group, the mean HUI3 score of the former significantly decreased.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring healthrelated quality of life. Ann Intern Med 1993; 118: 622–629.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 1989; 27(Suppl 3): S217–S232.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Feeny DH, Furlong W, Boyle MH, Torrance GW. Multiattribute health status classification systems: Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7: 490–502.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Feeny DH, Torrance GW, Furlong W. Health Utilities Index. In: Spilker B (eds), Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics. 2nd ed., Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Press, 1996: 239–252.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hart A. Mann-Whitney test is not just a test of medians: Differences in spread can be important. Br Med J 2001; 323: 391–393.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fayers PM, Machin D. Summarizing of life data using graphical methods. In: Staquet MJ, Hays RD, Fayers PM (eds), Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998: 315–355.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Owens DK, Cardinalli AB, Nease RF. Physicians' assessments of the utility of health states associated with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) Infection. Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 77–86.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Perez DJ, McGee R, Campbell AV, Christensen EA. A comparison of time trade-off and quality of life measures in patients with advanced cancer. Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 133–138

    Google Scholar 

  9. Browne JP, O'Boyle CA, McGee HM, McDonald NJ, Joyce CRB. Development of a direct weighting procedure for quality of life domains. Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 301–309.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sitzia J, Sobrido L. Measurement of health-related quality of life of patients receiving conservative treatment for limb lymphoedema using the Nottingham Health Profile. Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 373–384.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Smith KW, Avis NE, Mayer KH, Swislow L. Use the MQoL-HIV with asymptomatic HIV-positive patients. Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 555–560.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Johnson JA, Coons SJ. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 155–166.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Shmueli A. The SF-36 profile and health-related quality of life: An interpretative analysis. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 187–195.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nordeson A, Engström B, Norberg A. Self-reported quality of life for patients with progressive neurological diseases. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 257–266.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Damiano AM, Pastores GM, Ware JE Jr. The health-related quality of life of adults with Gaucher's disease receiving enzyme replacement therapy: Results from a restrospective study. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 373–384.

    Google Scholar 

  16. O'Leary CJ, Jones PW. The influence of decisions made by developers on health status questionnaire content. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 545–550.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Revicki DA, Leidy NK, Brennan-Diemer F, Thompson C, Togias A. Development and preliminary validation of the Multi-attribute Rhinitis Symptom Utility Index. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 693–702.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Osborne R. The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: A psychometric measure of Health-Related Quality of Life. Qual Life Res 1999; 8: 209–224.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mozes B, Maor Y, Shmueli A. Do we know what global ratings of health-related quality of life measure? Qual Life Res 1999; 8: 269–273.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lalonde L, Clarke AE, Joseph L, Mackenzie T, Grover SA, the Canadian Collaborative Cardiac assessment Group. Comparing the psychometric properties of preference-based and nonpreference-based health-related quality of life in coronary heart disease. Qual Life Res 1999; 8: 399–409.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Roset M, Badia X, Mayo NE. Sample size calculations in studies using the EuroQol 5D. Qual Life Res 1999; 8: 539–549.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cinà CS, Clase CM. The illness Intrusiveness Rating Scale: A measure of severity in individuals with hyperhidrosis. Qual Life Res 1999; 8: 693–698.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Klee M, Groenvold M, Machin D. Using data from studies of health-related quality of life to describe clinical issues examples from a longitudinal study of patients with advances stages. Qual Life Res 1999; 8: 733–742.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tully MP, Cantrill JA. The validity of the modified patient generated index-a quantitative and qualitative approach. Qual Life Res 2000; 9: 509–520.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Howorka K, Pumprla J, Schlusche C, Wagner-Nosiska D, Schabmann A, Bradley C. Dealing with ceiling baseline treatment satisfaction level in patients with diabetes under flexible, functional insulin treatment: Assessment of improvements in treatment satisfaction with a new insulin analogue. Qual Life Res 2000; 9: 915–930.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research Volume II-The Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1987; 52–54.

    Google Scholar 

  27. SAS Institute. SAS OnLineDoc Ver 8. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Statistics Canada. National Population Health Survey, 1998-1999, Public Use Microdata Files (82M0009XCB). Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Greife A._ North American Industry Classification System-a system for the future. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 2001; 16: 652.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance GW, et al. Multiplicative Multi-Attribute Utility Function for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3(HUI3 ) System: A Technical Report. McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper 98-11, 1998.

  31. Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 1965; 52: 591–611.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Tobin J. Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica 1958; 26: 24–36.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Austin PC, Escobar M, Kopec JA. The use of the Tobit model for analyzing measures of health status. Qual Life Res 2000; 9: 901–910.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Cleveland WS, Devlin SJ, Grosse E. Regression by local fitting. J Econom 1988; 37: 87–114.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cleveland WS. Robust locally-weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. J Am Stat Assoc 1979; 74: 829–836

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cleveland WS, Grosse E. Computational methods for local regression. Stat Comput 1991; 1: 47–62.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Denton M, Walters V. Gender differences in structural and behavioral determinants of health: An analysis of the social production of health. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 1221–1235.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Wyatt JR, Niparko JK, Rothman M, deLissovoy G. Cost utility of the multi-channel cochlear implants in 258 profoundly deaf individuals. Laryngoscope 1996; 106: 816–821.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Griffith LE, Ferrie PJ. Minimum skills required by children to complete health-related quality of life instruments for asthma: Comparison of measurement properties. Eur Respir J 1997; 10: 2285–2294.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Barr RD, Simpson T, Whitton A, Rush B, Furlong W, Feeny DH. Health-related quality of life in survivors of tumours of the central nervous system in childhood-a preference-based approach to measurement in a cross-sectional study. Eur J Cancer 1999; 35: 248–255.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Mittmann N, Trakas K, Risebrough N, Liu BA. Utility scores for chronic conditions in a community-dwelling population. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 15: 369–376.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Glaser AW, Abdul Rashid NF, U CL, Walker DA. School behaviour and health status after central nervous system tumours in childhood. Br J Cancer 1997; 76: 643–650.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Albertsen PC, Nease RF Jr, Potosky AL. Assessment of patient preferences among men with prostate cancer. J Urol 1998; 159: 158–163.

    Google Scholar 

  44. de Vries SO, Kuipers WD, Hunink MG. Intermittent claudication: Symptom severity versus health values. J Vasc Surg 1998; 27: 422–430.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Weintraub WS, Culler SD, Kosinski A, et al. Economics, health-related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness methods for the TACTICS (Treat Angina With Aggrastat [tirofiban] and Determine Cost of Therapy with Invasive or Conservative Strategy)-TIMI 18 trial. Am J Cardiol 1999; 83: 317–322

    Google Scholar 

  46. Comerota AJ, Throm RC, Mathias SD, Haughton S, Mewissen M. Catheter-directed thrombolysis for iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis improves health-related quality of life. J Vasc Surg 2000; 32: 130–137.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Felder-Puig R, Frey E, Sonnleithner G, et al. German cross-cultural adaptation of the Health Utilities Index and its application to a sample of childhood cancer survivors. Eur J Pediatr 2000; 159: 283–288.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ramsey SD, Andersen MR, Etzioni R, et al. Quality of life in survivors of colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 2000; 88: 1294–1303.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Barr RD, Chalmers D, De Pauw S, Furlong W, Weitzman S, Feeny D. Health-related quality of life in survivors of Wilms' tumor and advanced neuroblastoma: A cross-sectional study. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 3280–3287.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Bosch JL, Hunink MG. Comparison of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3(HUI3 ) and the EuroQol EQ-5D in patients treated for intermittent claudication. Qual Life Res 2000; 9: 591–601.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Fontana RJ, Moyer CA, Sonnad S, et al. Comorbidities and quality of life in patients with interferon-refractory chronic hepatitis C. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 170–178.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Rizzo JA, Sindelar JL. Linking health-related quality-of-life indicators to large national data sets. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 16: 473–482.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Grootendorst P, Feeny D, Furlong W. Health utilities index mark 3, evidence of construct validity for stroke and arthritis in a population health survey. Med Care 2000; 38: 290–299.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Kopec JA, Williams JI, To T, Austin PC. Measuring population health: Correlates of the Health Utilities Index among English and French Canadians. Can J Public Health 2000; 91: 465–470.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Kopec JA, Williams JI, To T, Austin PC. Cross-cultural comparisons of health status in Canada using the health utilities index. Ethn Health 2001; 6: 41–50.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, AB, Canada

    Jian Sun

Authors
  1. Jian Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sun, J. Adjusting distributions of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 utility scores of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 12, 11–20 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022017130014

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022017130014

Search

Navigation