Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to browse AJSM online!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Medical Decision Making
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (5)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Naeim, A.
Right arrow Articles by Mangione, C. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Naeim, A.
Right arrow Articles by Mangione, C. M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Options for Handling Missing Data in the Health Utilities Index Mark 3

Arash Naeim, MD, PhD

Division of Hematology-Oncology, UCLA Department of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, anaeim{at}mednet.ucla.edu

Emmett B. Keeler, PhD

RAND School of Public Policy, Division of Health Services Research, Santa Monica, California

Carol M. Mangione, MD

Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, UCLA Department of Medicine, Los Angeles, California

Background. The Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) is a tool composed of 41 questions, covering 8 attributes: vision, hearing, speech, ambulation, dexterity, emotion, cognition, and pain. Responses to these questions can define more than 972,000 health situations. This tool allows respondents to answer "Don’t Know," for which there is no scoring instruction, to any given question. This situation creates a break in the scoring algorithm and leads to considerable amounts of missing data. The goal of this study is to develop strategies to deal with HUI3 scores for participants who have missing data. Methods. The authors used data from 248 individuals enrolled in the Cataract Management Trial, focusing on the HUI3 vision and ambulation attributes, which had 19% and 10% of attribute levels missing, respectively. Inspection and deduction were used to fill in values independent of the value of the missing data, then alternative analytic techniques were compared, including mean substitution, model scoring, hot deck, multiple imputation, and regression imputation. Results. Inspection and logical deduction reduced the percentage of missing information in the HUI3 by 49% to 87%. A comparison of analytic techniques used for the remaining HUI3 vision data missing demonstrated the value of building models based on internal response patterns and that simple analytic techniques fare as well as more complicated ones when the number of missing cases is small. Conclusion.Analyzing the pattern of responses in cases where the attribute level score is missing reduces the amount of missing data and can simplify the analytic process for the remaining missing data.

Key Words: health utilities index • missing data • non-response • pattern analysis • imputation

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 25, No. 2, 186-198 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05275153


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