The Health Utilities Index (HUI®) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies

References

• Guyatt G H, Feeny D H, Patrick D L. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 1993; 118: 622–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feeny D H, Torrance G W, Furlong W J. Health Utilities Index. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd edn, B Spilker. Lippincott-Raven Press, Philadelphia, PA 1996; 85–95
   Google Scholar
• Patrick D L, Erickson P. Health status and health policy: quality of life in health care evaluation and resource allocation. Oxford University Press, New York 1993
   Google Scholar
• Feeny D. A utility approach to the assessment of health-related quality of life. Med Care 2000; 9((Suppl II))II-151–4
   Google Scholar
• von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behavior. 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton 1947
   Google Scholar
• Keeney R L, Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York 1993
   Google Scholar
• Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance G W. Multi-attribute health status classification systems: Health Utilities Index. PharmacoEconomics 1995; 7: 490–502
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G W, Goldsmith C, DePauw S, Zhu Z, et al. Multiplicative multi-attribute utility function for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) system: a technical report. Hamilton, Ont 1998, McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, CHEPA Working Paper 98–11
   Google Scholar
• Torrance G W, Furlong W, Feeny D, Boyle M. Multi-attribute preference functions: Health Utilities Index. PharmacoEconomics 1995; 7: 503–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance G W, Feeny D H, Furlong W J, Barr R D, Zhang Y, Wang Q. Multi-attribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system: Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care 1996; 34: 702–22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware J E, Brook R H, Davies A R, Lohr K N. Choosing measures of health status for individuals in general populations. Am J Public Health 1981; 71: 620–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller G A. The magical number seven plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity to process information. Psychol Rev 1956; 63: 81–97
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houle C, Berthelot J M. A head-to-head comparison of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 and the EQ-5D for the population living in private households in Canada. Quality of Life Newsletter 2000; 24: 5–6
   Google Scholar
• Neumann P J, Kuntz K M, Leon J, Araki S S, Hermann R C, Hsu M A, et al. Health utilities and health status in Alzheimer's Disease: a cross-sectional study of subjects and caregivers. Med Care 1999; 37: 27–32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neumann P J, Hermann R C, Kuntz K M, Araki S S, Duff S B, Berenbaum L J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of donepezil in treatment of mild or moderate Alzheimer's Disease. Neurology 1999; 52: 1138–45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Utility theories: measurements and applications, W Edwards. Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA 1992
   Google Scholar
• Torrance G W, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1989; 5: 559–75
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G W, Barr R D, Horsman J. Guide to design and development of health-state utility instrumentation. Hamilton, Ont 1990, McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, CHEPA Working Paper 90–9
   Google Scholar
• Torrance G W, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analogue scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states. MDM 2001; 21: 329–34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine, M R Gold, J E Siegel, L B Russell, M C Weinstein. Oxford University Press, New York 1996
   Google Scholar
• Torrance G W, Boyle M H, Horwood S P. Application of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Operations Res 1982; 30: 1042–69
   Google Scholar
• Revicki D A, Leidy N K, Brennan-Deimer F, Thompson C, Togias A. Development and preliminary validation of a multi-attribute rhinitis symptom utility index. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 693–702
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revicki D A, Leidy N K, Brennan-Deimer F, Sorensen S, Togias A. Integrating patient preferences into health outcomes assessment: the multi-attribute asthma symptom utility index. Chest 1998; 114: 998–1007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Galès C, Buron C, Costet N, Rosman S, Slama G. Development of a health status index weighted by utilities from the population of France: the Health Utilities Index (in French). Economie et Prévision, (in press)
   Google Scholar
• Froberg D G, Kane R L. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences - III: population and context effects. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 585–92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Variability of utility scores for health states among general population groups (MSc Thesis), W J Furlong. McMaster University, HamiltonCanada 1996
   Google Scholar
• Richardson J, Nord E. The importance of perspective in the measurement of quality-adjusted life years. Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 33–41
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Essink-Bot M L, Stouthard M EA, Bonsel G J. Generalizability of valuations on health states collected with the EuroQol questionnaire. Health Econ 1993; 2: 237–46
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Patrick D L, Sittampalam Y, Somerville S M, Carter W B, Bergner M. A cross-cultural comparison of health status values. Am J Public Health 1985; 75: 1402–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balaban D J, Sagi P C, Goldfarb N I, Nettler S. Weights for scoring the quality of well-being instrument among rheumatoid arthritics: a comparison to general population weights. Med Care 1986; 24: 973–80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan R M. Value judgement in the Oregon medicaid experiment. Med Care 1994; 32: 975–88
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coons S J, Rao S, Keininger D L, Hays R D. A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. PharmacoEconomics 2000; 17: 13–35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson J, Olsen J A, Hawthorne G, Mortimer D, Smith R. The measurement and valuation of utility based quality of life. Report to the Pharmaceutical Evaluation Section, Pharmaceutical Benefits Branch, Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services, 25 March, 1999. Monash University, Australia. Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Program Evaluation. 1999, Tender No: 22/98
   Google Scholar
• Barr R D, Chalmers D, DePauw S, Furlong W, Weitzman S, Feeny D. Health-related quality of life in survivors of Wilms' tumor and advanced neuroblastoma: a cross-sectional study. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 3280–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grootendorst P, Feeny D, Furlong W. Health Utilities Index Mark 3: evidence of construct validity for stoke and arthritis in a population survey. Med Care 2000; 38: 290–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szecket N, Medin G, Furlong W J, Feeny D H, Barr R D, DePauw S. Preliminary translation and cultural adaptation of Health Utilities Index questionnaires for application in Argentina. Int J Cancer 1999, Suppl 12: 119–24
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Barr R D, Simpson T, Whitton A, Rush B, Furlong W, Feeny D H. Health-related quality of life in survivors of tumours of the central nervous system in childhood - a preference-based approach to measurement in a cross-sectional study. Eur J Cancer 1999; 35: 248–55
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Glaser A W, Furlong W, Walker D A, Fielding K, Davies K, Feeny D H, et al. Applicability of the Health Utilities Index to a population of childhood survivors of central nervous system tumours in the U.K. Eur J Cancer 1999; 35: 256–61
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Furlong W J, Feeny D H, Torrance G W, Barr R D. The Health Utilities Index (HUP) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical trials. Hamilton, Ont 2001, McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, CHEPA Working Paper 01–02
   Google Scholar
• Costet N, Le Gales C, Buron C, Kinkor F, Mesbah M, Chwalow J, et al. French cross-cultural adaptation of the Health Utilities Indexes Mark 2 (HUI2) and 3 (HUI3) classification systems. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 245–56
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Barr R D, Petrie C, Furlong W, Rothney M, Feeny D. Health-related quality of life during post-induction chemotherapy in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in remission: an influence of corticosteroid therapy. Int J Oncol 1997; 11: 333–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Torrance G W, Walker V, Grossman R, Mukherjee J, Vaughan D, La Forge J, et al. Economic evaluation of ciprofloxacin compared with usual antibacterial care for the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis in patients followed for 1 year. PhamacoEconomics 1999; 15: 499–520
   Google Scholar
• Barr R D, Furlong W, Dawson S, Whitton A C, Strautmanis I, Pai M, et al. An assessment of global health status in survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in childhood. Am J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 1993; 15: 284–90
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Whitton A C, Rhydderch H, Furlong W, Feeny D, Barr R D. Self-reported comprehensive health status of adult brain tumor patients using the Health Utilities Index. Cancer 1997; 80: 258–65
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wang Q, Chen G. The health status of the Singaporean population as measured by the Health Utilities Index Mark III system. Singapore Med J 1999; 40: 389–96
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Summarizing population health: directions for the development and application of population metrics, M J Field, M R Gold. Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, Washington, DC 1998
   Google Scholar
• Speechley K N, Maunsell E, Desmeules M, Schanzer D, Landgraf J, Feeny D H, et al. Mutual concurrent validity of the Child Health Questionnaire and the Health Utilities Index: an exploratory analysis using survivors of childhood cancer. Int J Cancer 1999, Suppl 12: 95–105
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada. 1st edn. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, Ottawa November, 1994, 2nd edn, 1997
   Google Scholar
• Saigal S, Stoskopf B L, Feeny D, Furlong W, Burrows E, Rosenbaum P L, et al. Differences in preferences for neonatal outcomes among health care professionals, parents and adolescents. JAMA 1999; 281: 1991–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grootendorst P, Feeny D H, Furlong W. Does it matter whom and how you ask? Inter- and intra-rater agreement in the Ontario Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 127–36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar