IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v12y2003i11p975-981.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF‐6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index

Author

Listed:
  • Bernie J. O'Brien
  • Marian Spath
  • Gordon Blackhouse
  • J.L. Severens
  • Paul Dorian
  • John Brazier

Abstract

Background: The SF‐6D is a new health state classification and utility scoring system based on 6 dimensions (‘6D’) of the Short Form 36, and permits a “bridging” transformation between SF‐36 responses and utilities. The Health Utilities Index, mark 3 (HUI3) is a valid and reliable multi‐attribute health utility scale that is widely used. We assessed within‐subject agreement between SF‐6D utilities and those from HUI3. Methods: Patients at increased risk of sudden cardiac death and participating in a randomized trial of implantable defibrillator therapy completed both instruments at baseline. Score distributions were inspected by scatterplot and histogram and mean score differences compared by paired t‐test. Pearson correlation was computed between instrument scores and also between dimension scores within instruments. Between‐instrument agreement was by intra‐class correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: SF‐6D and HUI3 forms were available from 246 patients. Mean scores for HUI3 and SF‐6D were 0.61 (95% CI 0.60–0.63) and 0.58 (95% CI 0.54–0.62) respectively; a difference of 0.03 (p

Suggested Citation

  • Bernie J. O'Brien & Marian Spath & Gordon Blackhouse & J.L. Severens & Paul Dorian & John Brazier, 2003. "A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF‐6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(11), pages 975-981, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:12:y:2003:i:11:p:975-981
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.789
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.789
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.789?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
    2. Keeney,Ralph L. & Raiffa,Howard, 1993. "Decisions with Multiple Objectives," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521438834, February.
    3. Torrance, George W., 1986. "Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal : A review," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rowen, D & Brazier, J & Tsuchiya, A & Hernández, M & Ibbotson, R, 2009. "The simultaneous valuation of states from multiple instruments using ranking and VAS data: methods and preliminary results," MPRA Paper 29841, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Christine McDonough & Anna Tosteson, 2007. "Measuring Preferences for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 93-106, February.
    3. Roberta Ara & John Brazier & Tracey Young, 2017. "Recommended Methods for the Collection of Health State Utility Value Evidence in Clinical Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 67-75, December.
    4. Cecilia Quercioli & Gabriele Messina & Emanuela Barbini & Giovanni Carriero & Mara Fanì & Nicola Nante, 2009. "Importance of sociodemographic and morbidity aspects in measuring health-related quality of life: performances of three tools," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(4), pages 389-397, October.
    5. Mónica Hernández Alava & John Brazier & Donna Rowen & Aki Tsuchiya, 2013. "Common Scale Valuations across Different Preference-Based Measures," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(6), pages 839-852, August.
    6. Kontodimopoulos, Nick & Niakas, Dimitris, 2008. "An estimate of lifelong costs and QALYs in renal replacement therapy based on patients' life expectancy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 85-96, April.
    7. David Feeny, 2012. "The Multi-attribute Utility Approach to Assessing Health-related Quality of Life," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 36, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Janelle Seymour & Paul McNamee & Anthony Scott & Michela Tinelli, 2010. "Shedding new light onto the ceiling and floor? A quantile regression approach to compare EQ‐5D and SF‐6D responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(6), pages 683-696, June.
    9. Tubeuf, S, 2008. "Income-related inequalities in self-assessed health: comparisons of alternative measurements of health," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 08/04, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    10. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Mónica Hernández Alava, 2012. "Valuing states from multiple measures on the same visual analogue sale: a feasibility study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 715-729, June.
    11. Brazier, JE & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2008. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) from non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," MPRA Paper 29808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Carmen Selva-Sevilla & Paula Ferrara & Manuel Gerónimo-Pardo, 2020. "Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D, and comparison of their psychometric properties in a spinal postoperative Spanish population," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(4), pages 649-662, June.
    13. Silvia Garrido & Ildefonso Méndez & José-María Abellán, 2013. "Analysing the Simultaneous Relationship Between Life Satisfaction and Health-Related Quality of Life," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 1813-1838, December.
    14. Stavros Petrou & Christine Hockley, 2005. "An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(11), pages 1169-1189, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. D. Stratmann‐Schoene & T. Kuehn & R. Kreienberg & R. Leidl, 2006. "A preference‐based index for the SF‐12," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 553-564, June.
    2. Rodríguez-Míguez, E. & Abellán-Perpiñán, J.M. & Alvarez, X.C. & González, X.M. & Sampayo, A.R., 2016. "The DEP-6D, a new preference-based measure to assess health states of dependency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 210-219.
    3. McCabe, Christopher & Brazier, John & Gilks, Peter & Tsuchiya, Aki & Roberts, Jennifer & O'Hagan, Anthony & Stevens, Katherine, 2006. "Using rank data to estimate health state utility models," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 418-431, May.
    4. McCabe, C & Brazier, J & Gilks, P & Tsuchiya, A & Roberts, J & O'Hagan, A & Stevens, K, 2004. "Estimating population cardinal health state valuation models from individual ordinal (rank) health state preference data," MPRA Paper 29759, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. David Feeny, 2012. "The Multi-attribute Utility Approach to Assessing Health-related Quality of Life," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 36, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Brazier, John & Rowen, Donna & Tsuchiya, Aki & Yang, Yaling & Young, Tracy A., 2011. "The impact of adding an extra dimension to a preference-based measure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 245-253, July.
    7. Stavros Petrou & Christine Hockley, 2005. "An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(11), pages 1169-1189, November.
    8. Dolan, Paul & Kavetsos, Georgios & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2013. "Sick but satisfied: The impact of life and health satisfaction on choice between health scenarios," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 708-714.
    9. Benjamin M. Craig & Jan J. V. Busschbach, 2011. "Toward a more universal approach in health valuation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(7), pages 864-875, July.
    10. Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Catharina G.M. & Chorus, Astrid M.J. & Taeke van Beekum, W. & Detmar, Symone B. & van den Hout, Wilbert B., 2006. "Modelling and estimation of valuations for the Dutch London Handicap Scale," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 1119-1138, November.
    11. Simon J Palfreyman & Angela M Tod & John E Brazier & Jonathan A Michaels, 2010. "A systematic review of health‐related quality of life instruments used for people with venous ulcers: an assessment of their suitability and psychometric properties," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(19‐20), pages 2673-2703, October.
    12. G. Kobelt & B. Jönsson, 2008. "The burden of rheumatoid arthritis and access to treatment: outcome and cost-utility of treatments," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 8(2), pages 95-106, January.
    13. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.
    14. Lori Curtis & Martin D. Dooley & Ellen L. Lipman & David H. Feeny, "undated". "The Role of Permanent Income and Family Structure in the Determination of Child Health in the Ontario Child Health Study," Canadian International Labour Network Working Papers 16, McMaster University.
    15. Yeon Wook Kim & Chang-Hoon Lee & Young Sik Park & Yu-Il Kim & Chul Min Ahn & Ju-Ock Kim & Joo Hun Park & Sang Haak Lee & Jae Yeol Kim & Eun Mi Chun & Tae Hoon Jung & Kwang Ha Yoo, 2015. "Effect of Exposure to Second-Hand Smoke on the Quality of Life: A Nationwide Population-Based Study from South Korea," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-10, September.
    16. Kobelt, G., 2013. "Health Economics: An Introduction to Economic Evaluation," Monographs, Office of Health Economics, number 000004.
    17. Garry R. Barton & Tracey H. Sach & Anthony J. Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Michael Doherty & David K. Whynes & Kenneth R. Muir, 2008. "A comparison of the performance of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D for individuals aged ≥ 45 years," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 815-832, July.
    18. Eva Rodríguez Míguez & José María Abellán Perpiñán & José Carlos Álvarez Villamarín & José Manuel González Martínez & Antonio Rodríguez Sampayo, 2013. "Development of a new preference-based instrument to measure dependency," Working Papers 1301, Universidade de Vigo, Departamento de Economía Aplicada.
    19. Matthijs M. Versteegh & Annemieke Leunis & Jolanda J. Luime & Mike Boggild & Carin A. Uyl-de Groot & Elly A. Stolk, 2012. "Mapping QLQ-C30, HAQ, and MSIS-29 on EQ-5D," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(4), pages 554-568, July.
    20. Carolyn Czoski-Murray & David Meads & Richard Edlin & Claire Hulme & Claudi Gorecki & Jane Nixon & Christopher McCabe, 2014. "Constructing a utility algorithm for the pressure ulcer quality of life-utility instrument (PUQOL-UI)," Working Papers 1404, Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:12:y:2003:i:11:p:975-981. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.