Cargando…
What were they thinking when providing preference measurements for generic health states? The evidence for HUI3
BACKGROUND: Multi-attribute generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life are used as comprehensive outcome measures. Typically preferences for health states defined by these systems are elicited from a representative sample of the general population. An important element in th...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6094882/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30111316 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0993-9 |
_version_ | 1783347881361539072 |
---|---|
author | Feeny, David Furlong, William Torrance, George W. |
author_facet | Feeny, David Furlong, William Torrance, George W. |
author_sort | Feeny, David |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Multi-attribute generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life are used as comprehensive outcome measures. Typically preferences for health states defined by these systems are elicited from a representative sample of the general population. An important element in that elicitation process is the information that respondents were instructed to consider in providing their responses. METHODS: A random sample of community-dwelling respondents in Canada was surveyed in face-to-face interviews. Respondents provided preference scores for selected Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) health states. Respondents also answered questions about the most important attributes and the importance of various impacts of the health states in providing their preference scores. RESULTS: Fifty per cent of respondents reported that they focussed on two, and 21% on three, attributes of the eight HUI3 attributes. Each of the eight attributes was identified as important; pain (49%), vision (37%), cognition (34%), emotion (28%), and ambulation (28%) were the most important. The null hypothesis that all of the attributes were equally important was rejected (p < 0.001). With respect to the impacts, 89% of respondents indicated that the ability to take care of oneself was quite or very important; similarly 76% reported the same for impact on family life, 69% for impact on the happiness of others, 61% for the impact on their ability to work, and 42% for the impact on their leisure activities. The null hypothesis that all of the impacts were equally important was rejected (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In providing preference scores for HUI3 health states, respondents thoughtfully examined the implications of the health states for their ability to live, work, socialize, and function. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6094882 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60948822018-08-24 What were they thinking when providing preference measurements for generic health states? The evidence for HUI3 Feeny, David Furlong, William Torrance, George W. Health Qual Life Outcomes Research BACKGROUND: Multi-attribute generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life are used as comprehensive outcome measures. Typically preferences for health states defined by these systems are elicited from a representative sample of the general population. An important element in that elicitation process is the information that respondents were instructed to consider in providing their responses. METHODS: A random sample of community-dwelling respondents in Canada was surveyed in face-to-face interviews. Respondents provided preference scores for selected Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) health states. Respondents also answered questions about the most important attributes and the importance of various impacts of the health states in providing their preference scores. RESULTS: Fifty per cent of respondents reported that they focussed on two, and 21% on three, attributes of the eight HUI3 attributes. Each of the eight attributes was identified as important; pain (49%), vision (37%), cognition (34%), emotion (28%), and ambulation (28%) were the most important. The null hypothesis that all of the attributes were equally important was rejected (p < 0.001). With respect to the impacts, 89% of respondents indicated that the ability to take care of oneself was quite or very important; similarly 76% reported the same for impact on family life, 69% for impact on the happiness of others, 61% for the impact on their ability to work, and 42% for the impact on their leisure activities. The null hypothesis that all of the impacts were equally important was rejected (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In providing preference scores for HUI3 health states, respondents thoughtfully examined the implications of the health states for their ability to live, work, socialize, and function. BioMed Central 2018-08-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6094882/ /pubmed/30111316 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0993-9 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Feeny, David Furlong, William Torrance, George W. What were they thinking when providing preference measurements for generic health states? The evidence for HUI3 |
title | What were they thinking when providing preference measurements for generic health states? The evidence for HUI3 |
title_full | What were they thinking when providing preference measurements for generic health states? The evidence for HUI3 |
title_fullStr | What were they thinking when providing preference measurements for generic health states? The evidence for HUI3 |
title_full_unstemmed | What were they thinking when providing preference measurements for generic health states? The evidence for HUI3 |
title_short | What were they thinking when providing preference measurements for generic health states? The evidence for HUI3 |
title_sort | what were they thinking when providing preference measurements for generic health states? the evidence for hui3 |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6094882/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30111316 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0993-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT feenydavid whatweretheythinkingwhenprovidingpreferencemeasurementsforgenerichealthstatestheevidenceforhui3 AT furlongwilliam whatweretheythinkingwhenprovidingpreferencemeasurementsforgenerichealthstatestheevidenceforhui3 AT torrancegeorgew whatweretheythinkingwhenprovidingpreferencemeasurementsforgenerichealthstatestheevidenceforhui3 |