Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 7, Issue 6, pp 503–520 | Cite as

Multi-Attribute Preference Functions

Health Utilities Index
  • George W. Torrance
  • William Furlong
  • David Feeny
  • Michael Boyle
Review Article Multi-Attribute Preference Functions

Abstract

SummaryMulti-attribute utility theory. an extension of conventional utility theory, can be applied to model preference scores for health slates defined by multi-attribute health status classification systems. The type of preference independence among the attributes determines the type of preference function required: additive, multiplicative or multilinear. In addition, the type of measurement instrument used determines the type of preference score obtained: value or utility.

Multi-attribute utility theory has been applied to 2 recently developed multi-attribute health status classification systems the Health Utilities Index (HUI) Mark II and Mark III systems. Results are presented for the Mark system, and ongoing research is described for the Mark system. The theory is also discussed in the context of ocher well known multi-attribute systems.

The HUI system is an efficient method of determining a general public-based utility score for a specified health outcome or for the health status of an individual. In clinical populations, the scores can be used 10 provide a single summary measure of health-related quality of life. In cost-utility analyses, the scores can be used as quality weights for calculating quality-adjusted life years. In general populations, the measure can be used as quality weights for determining population health expectancy.

Keywords

Utility Score Preference Score Health Utility Index Health Expectancy Quality Weight 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behaviour. Princeton (NJ): Princeton UniversityPres, 1944Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Luce RD, Raiffa H. Games and decisions. New York: Wiley. 1957Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Raiffa H, Decision analysis: introductory lectures on urlder choices under uncertainty. Reading (MA): Addison-Wesley. 1968Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bell DE, Raiffa H, Tversky A. Desriptiye, normative,and prescriptive interactions in decision making. In: Bell DE, Raiffa H, Tversky A, editors. Decision making: descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions. Cambridge (MA): Cambridge University Press, 1988: 9–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Howard RA. Decision analysis: practice and promise. Management Sci 1988; 34 (6): 679–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Edwards W. Toward the demise of economic man and woman bottom lines from Santa Cruz. In: Edwards W, editor. Utility theories: measurement and management applications. Boston: Kluwer Academic, 1992: 2S3–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Luce RD, Von Winterfeldt D. What common ground for descriptive, prescriptive, and normative utility theories? Management Sci 1994; 40 (2): 263–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Keeney RL. Utility functions for multiattributed consequences. Management Sci 1972; 18 (5): 276–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keeney RL. Building models of values. Eur J Operations Res 1988; 37: 149–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Farquhar PH. A fractional hypercube decomposition theorem for multiattribute utility functions. Operations Res 1975; 23 (5): 941–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Farquhar PH. Pyramid and semicube decompositions of multiattribute utility functions. Operations Res 1976; 24 (2): 256–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Farquhar PH. A survey of multiattribute utility theory and applications. Trends Managing Sci 1977; 6: 59–89Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with mul1ip]e objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: Wiley, 1976Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, et al. Multi–attribute health StatuS classification systems: health utilities index. Pharomacoeconomics 1995; 7 (6): 490–S02CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McNeil BJ, Weichselbaum R, Pauker SG. Speech and survival: tradeoffS between quality and quantity of life in laryngeal cancer. N Engl J Med 1981; 305 (17): 982–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boyd NF, Sutherland HJ, Ciampi A, et al. A comparison of methods of assessing voice quality in laryngeal cancer. In: Deber RA, Thompson GG. editors. Choices in health care:decision making and evaluation of effectiveness. Toronto: Departmentof Health Administration, University of Toronto. 1982: 141–4Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cadman D, Goldsmith CH. Development of an index of well being for handicapped children: final report to the Ontario Ministry of Health grant DM515. Hamilton (Ont.): Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostalislics, McMaster University. 1983Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boyle MH, Torrance GW. Developing multiattribute health indexes. Med Care 1984; 22 (11): 1045–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Von Winterfeldt J, Edwards W. Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge (MA): Cambridge University Press. 1986Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Krantz DH, Luce RD, Suppes P, et al. Foundalions of measurement. Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press, 1971Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Torrance GW. Social preferences for health States: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Soc Econ Planning Sci 1976; 10 (3): 129–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Torrance GW, Boyle MH, Horwood SP. Application of multi–attribute utilitY theory to measure social preferences for healthstates. Operations Res 1982; 30 (6): 1043–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, et al. Preferences for health outcomes–comparisons of assessment methods. Med Decis for Making 1984; 4 (3): 315–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Elstein A, Holzman GB, Ravitch MM, et al. Comparison of physicians’ decisions regarding estrogen replacement therapy for menopausal women and decisions derived from a decision analytic model. Am J Med 1986; 80: 246–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Boyd NF, Sutherland HJ, Heasman KZ, et al. Whose utilities for decision analysis? Med Decis Making 1990; 10 (1): 58–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bass EB, Bergner M, Pitt H, et al. Comparison of patient utilities for gallstone treatments and related outcomes by rating scale and standard gamble techniques [abstract]. Med Decis Making 1991; 11 (4): 333Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Patrick DL, Starks HE, Cain KC, et al. Measuring preferences for health states worse than death. Med Decis Making 1994; 14 (1): 9–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring health–related quality of life. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40 (6): 593–600PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick, DL. Measuring health–related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 1993; 118 (8): 622–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Patrick DL, Erickson PE. Health Status and health policy: quality of life in health care evaluation andresource allocation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Drummond MF, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Eisenberg JM. Clinical economics–a guide to the economic analysis of clinical practices. JAMA 1989; 262 (20): 2879–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities and quality–adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 1989: 5 (4): 559–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Weinstein MC. Principles of cost–effective resource allocation in health care organizalions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1990; 6: 93–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Laupacis A, Feeny DH, Detsky AS, et al. How attractive does a new techno]ogy have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can Med Assoc J 1992; 146 (4): 473–81Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gafni A, Birch S. Guidelines for the adoption of new technologies:a prescription for uncontrolled growth in expenditures and how to avoid the problem. Can Med Assoc J 1993; 148 (6): 913–7Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Naylor CD, Williams JI, Basinski A, et al. Technolo assessment and cost–effectiveness analysis: misguided guidelines? Can Med Assoc J 1993; 148 (6): 921–4Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, et al. Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations revisited. Can Med Assoc J 1993; 148 (6): 927–9Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kaplan RM, Feeny DH, Revicki DA. Methods for assessing relative importance in preference based outcome measures. Qual Life Res 1993; 2 (6): 467–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for Ihe economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals:Canada. 1st ed. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. 1994Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Garber AM, Phelps CE. Economic foundations of cost–effectiveness analysis. National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge (MA). Working Paper No. 4164, 1992Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Torrance GW. Health status index model: a unified mathematical view. Management Sci 1976; 22 (9): 990–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wilkins R, Adams OB. Healthfulness of life. Montreal: The Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1983Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wilkins R, Adams OB. Measuring health. Policy Opt 1983; 4 (5); 28–31Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wilkins R, Adams OB. Health expectancy in Canada, late 1970’s: demographic, regional and social dimensions. Am J Public health 1983; 73 (9): 1073–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wolfson MC. A system of health statistics: toward a new conceptual framework for integrating health data. In: CIAR Population Health Working Paper No. 1. Toronto: Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, 1989Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Berthelot J-M, Roberge R, Wolfson MC. The calculation of health–adjusted life expectancy for a Canadian province using a multi–attribute utility function: a first attempt. In: Robine JM, Mathers CD, Bone MR, et al., editors. Calculation of health expectancies: harmonization. consensus achieved and future perspectives. Vol. 226. Montpellier: Colloque INSERM/John Libbey Eurotexl Ltd., 1993: 161–72Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    World Bank. World development report 1993: inyesting in health: New York: Oxford University Press, 1993Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gold MR, Franks P, McCoy K. Condition weights for chronic diseases from a nationally representative sample [abstract]. Med Decis Making 1994: 14 (4): 431Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Erickson P, Wilson R, Shannon I. Years of healthy life, statistical notes. No.7. Hyattsville (MD): National Center for Health Statistic, 1995Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Torrance GW, Zhang Y, Feeny D, et al. Multi–attribute preference functions for a comprehensive health Status classification system. HamiltOn (Ont.): McMaster UniversitY, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis. Working Paper No. 92–18, 1992Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Boyle MH, Torrance GW, Sinclair JC, et al. Economic evaluaTion of neonatal intensive care of very–low–birth–weight infants. N Engl J Med 1983: 308: 1330–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Feeny DH, Torrance GW, Goldsmith CH, et al. A multi–attribute approach to population health status. Proceedings of the Social Section, Alexandria (VA): American Statistical Association,. 1994: 161–6Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Feeny D, Torrance GW, Goldsmith C, et al. A multi–attribute approach to population health status. Working Paper 94–5,Hamilton (Ont.): McMaster University, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, 1994Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kirk RE. Experimental design; procedures for the behavioural sciences. Belmont (CA): Brooks/Cole Publishing, 1968Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Statistics Canada. Health status of Canadians: report of the 1991 general social survey. Cat, 11–612E.No.8. Ottawa; Statistics Canada. 1994Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kaplan RM, Anderson JP. A general health policy model: update and applications. Health Serv Res 1988; 23 (2): 203–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kaplan RM, Anderson JP. The general health policy model: an integrated approach. In: Spilker B. editor. Quality of life assessments in clinical trials. New York: Raven Press, 1990: 131–49Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Euroqol Group. EuroQol–a new facility for the meaSurement of health–related quality of life. Health Policy 1990: 16: 199–208Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Nord E. EuroQol: health–related quality of life meaSurement. Valuations of health states by the general public in Norway. Health Policy 1991; 18: 25–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Essink-Bot ML, Stouthard MEA, Bonsel GJ. Generalizability of valuations on health States collected wilh the EuroQol questionnaire. Health Econ 1993; 2: 237–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    de Charoo F. The EuroQol: a measure of health–related quality on ife [brochure]. Rotterdam: Erasmus University, Centre for Health Policy and Law, 1994Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hadorn DC. Setting health care priorities in Oregon: cost–effectiveness meets the rule of rescue. JAMA 1991; 265 (17): 2218–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Boyle M, Furlong W, Torrance GW, et al. Reliability of Ihe health ulilities index–Mark III used in the 1991 cycle 6 general social survey health questionnaire.Working paper No. 94–7. Hamilton (Ont.): McMaster University,Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, 1994Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Miller HW. Plan and operation ofthe Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,United States,1971–73. Vitlal and health statistics,series 1, no.10a,10b.DHEW publication no.(PHS)73–1310. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1977Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Engel A, Murphy R, Maurer K, et al. Plan and operation oflhe NHANES I Augmentation Survey of adults 25–74 years. United States, 1974–75. Vital and health statistics,series 1,no. 14. DHEW publication no. (PHS) 78–1814. Washington,DC: US Government Printing Office, 1978Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Cohen BB, Barbano HE, Cox CS, et al. Plan and operation of the NHANES I Epidemiologic Followup Study,1982–84. Vital and health Statitics, series 1, no.22.DHHS publication no. (PHS) 87–1324. Washington,DC: US Government Printing Office, 1987Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Franks P, Gold M, Erickson P. Assessing the health of the nation: the predictive validity of a preference–based measure and self–rated health. Med Care. In press, 1987Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Saigal S, Rosenbaum P, Stoskopf B, et al. Comprehensive assessment of the health status of extremely low birth weight children at eight years of age: comparison with a reference group. J Pediatr 1994; 125 (3): 411–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Saigal S, Feeny D, Furlong W, et al. Comparison of the health related quality of life of extremely low birth weight children and a reference group of children at age eight years, J Pediatr 1994: 125 (3): 418–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Furlong WJ, Torrance GW, Feeny DH. McMaster health utilities index: algorithm for determining Mark II/III health Status classification levels,health states and health state utility scores from 1992–10–20 self–administered health status questionnaire.Technical report. Hamilton (Ont.): McMaster University, 1995Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Feeny DH, Leiper A, Barr RD, et al. The comprehensive assessment of health status in survivors of childhood cancer: application to high–risk acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, Br J Cancer 1993; 67: 1047–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Barr RD, Feeny D, Furlong W, et al. A preference–based approach to health–related quality of life for children with cancer. Int J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 1995. In pressGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Barr RD, Pai MKR, Weitzman S. et al. A multi–attribute approach to health statuS measurement and clinical management–illustrated by an application to brain tumors in childhood. Int J Oncol 1994; 4: 639–48PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Freund DA, Dittus RS, Fitsgerald J, et al. Assessing and improving outcomes: total knee replacement. Health Serv Res 1990; 25 (5): 723–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, et al. Validation study of WOMAC:a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988; 15: 1833–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36–item short form health survey (SF–36). Med Care 1992: 30 (6); 413–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Torrance G, Rocchi A. Health Utilities Index in an oncology trial: a measure of health–related quality of life and basis for cost–utility analysis [abstract]. In: Tannock I, editOr. Clinical trials in oncology: improving their design and analysis, final program and abstracts: 1993 Oct 28–30: Toronto. Toronto: Ontario Cancer Institute/Princess Margaret Hospital,University of Toronto, 1993: 54Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Rocchi A, Torrance G, Wheeler S, et al. Economic evaluation measuremnts in an oncology trial [abstract].In: Tannock I. editor. Clinical trials in oncology: improving their design and analysis. final program and abstracts: 1993 Oct 28–30:Toronto. Toronto: Ontario Cancer Institute Prinoess Margaret Hospital, University of Toronto, 1993: 55Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Catlin G, Will P. The National Population Health Survey: highlights of initial developments. Health Reports (Statistics Canada, Catalogue 82–003) 1992; 4 (3); 313–9Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Tambay J-L, Catlin G. Sample design 0f the National Population Health Survey. Health Reports (Statistics Canada, Catalogue 82–003). In press, 1992Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Montigny G. The National longitudinal Survey of Chilmn (NLSC). Health Report Statistics Canada, Catalogue 82–003) 1993; 5 (3): 317–20Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Tenenhouse A. The Canadian national osteoporosis study funded by the National Health Research and Development Program. Montreal: McGill University, 1994Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • George W. Torrance
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • William Furlong
    • 1
  • David Feeny
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Michael Boyle
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Clinical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.Centre for Health Economics and Policy AnalysisHamiltonCanada
  3. 3.Department of Management ScienceMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  4. 4.Department of EconomicsMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  5. 5.Department of PsychiatryMcMaster UniversityHamilionCanada

Personalised recommendations