Evaluating the discriminatory power of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in a US general population survey using Shannon's indices

被引:57
作者
Janssen, Mathieu F. Bas [1 ]
Birnie, Erwin [1 ]
Bonsel, Gouke J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Acad Med Ctr, Dept Social Med, NL-1100 DD Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
health status; methodology; psychometrics; population health; health-related quality-of-life;
D O I
10.1007/s11136-006-9160-6
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objectives To compare quantitatively the discriminatory power of the EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in terms of absolute and relative informativity, using Shannon's indices. Methods EQ-5D and HUI2/3 data completed by a sample of the general adult US population (N = 3,691) were used. Five dimensions allowed head-to-head comparison of informativity: Mobility/Ambulation; Anxiety/Depression/Emotion; Pain/Discomfort (EQ-5D; HUI2; HUI3); Self-Care (EQ-5D; HUI2); and Cognition (HUI2; HUI3). Shannon's index and Shannon's Evenness index were used to assess absolute and relative informativity, both by dimension and by instrument as a whole. Results Absolute informativity was highest for HUI3, with the largest differences in Pain/Discomfort and Cognition. Relative informativity was highest for EQ-5D, with the largest differences in Mobility/Ambulation and Anxiety/Depression/Emotion. Absolute informativity by instrument was consistently highest for HUI3 and lowest for EQ-5D, and relative informativity was highest for EQ-5D and lowest for HUI3. Discussion Performance in terms of absolute and relative informativity of the common dimensions of the three instruments varies over dimensions. Several dimensions are suboptimal: Pain/Discomfort (EQ-5D) seems too crude with only 3 levels, and the level descriptions of Ambulation (HUI3) and Self-Care (HUI2) could be improved. In absence of a formal measure, Shannon's indices provide useful measures for assessing discriminatory power of utility instruments.
引用
收藏
页码:895 / 904
页数:10
相关论文
共 37 条
[1]  
Basharin G. P., 1959, THEOR PROBAB APPL, V4, P333
[2]   TESTING THE VALIDITY OF THE EUROQOL AND COMPARING IT WITH THE SF-36 HEALTH SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE [J].
BRAZIER, J ;
JONES, N ;
KIND, P .
QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 1993, 2 (03) :169-180
[3]  
Brazier J, 1999, HEALTH ECON, V8, P41, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199902)8:1<41::AID-HEC395>3.3.CO
[4]  
2-R
[5]  
Brazier J., 1999, J Health Serv Res Policy, V4, P174, DOI [10.1177/135581969900400310, DOI 10.1177/135581969900400310]
[6]  
Brooks R., 2003, MEASUREMENT VALUATIO
[7]   Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments [J].
Conner-Spady, B ;
Suarez-Almazor, ME .
MEDICAL CARE, 2003, 41 (07) :791-801
[8]   A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments [J].
Coons, SJ ;
Rao, S ;
Keininger, DL ;
Hays, RD .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2000, 17 (01) :13-35
[9]  
FEENY D, 1999, QUALITY LIFE NEWSLET, V22, P8
[10]   The Health Utilities Index (HUI®) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies [J].
Furlong, WJ ;
Feeny, DH ;
Torrance, GW ;
Barr, RD .
ANNALS OF MEDICINE, 2001, 33 (05) :375-384