This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Wang, Q. Articles by Barr, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wang, Q. Articles by Barr, R. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

How Robust Is the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 Utility Function?

Division of Economics and Statistics, School of Accountancy and Business, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

William Furlong, MSc

Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis and the Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and Health Utilities Inc.

David Feeny, PhD

Institute of Health Economics, and the Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and Health Utilities Inc.

George Torrance, PhD

McMaster University, Health Utilities Inc., and Innovus Research Inc.

Ronald Barr, MD, ChB

Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University, and the Children’s Hospital of Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Purpose. The utility function for the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2) system is based on preference measurements from a random sample of parents with exclusion of inconsistent respondents. Would results without exclusions or from a different group of parents have differed? Methods. Scores were obtained from parents of patients (n = 59) undergoing treatment for cancer. Mean scores from the 2 sets of parents were compared: parents of patients and parents from the general population. Three multiattribute utility functions were estimated. Mean scores for HUI2 states using the functions were compared. Results. Most differences in mean scores between different groups were not statistically significant (P < 0.05). Differences in parameter estimates among the 3 utility functions were 0.05 or less. The exponent on the power function for the parent-of-patient group was 2.16, within 6% of that for random sample parents. The intraclass correlation between scores for 144 health states derived from the random-sample-parents and parents-of-patients functions was 0.99; the mean difference per state in scores was 0.018.Conclusion. The HUI2 scoring function generalizes well in that different groups of parents give similar results. The HUI2 scoring function is robust in that the functions without and with exclusions generate scores that are very close in value.

Key Words: Health Utilities Index • multiattribute utility • utility • preferences • health-related quality of life • generalizability

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 22, No. 4, 350-358 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0202200413


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. M. Lamers, P. F. M. Stalmeier, P. F. M. Krabbe, and J. J. V. Busschbach Inconsistencies in TTO and VAS Values for EQ-5D Health States Med Decis Making, March 1, 2006; 26(2): 173 - 181. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. M. Bravata, L. M. Nelson, A. M. Garber, and M. K. Goldstein Invariance and Inconsistency in Utility Ratings Med Decis Making, March 1, 2005; 25(2): 158 - 167. [Abstract] [PDF]