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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Feeny, David, Furlong, William, Torrance, George W.
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