Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 4/2011

01-12-2011 | Original Research Article

Comparison of Scores Derived from the Box Score-11 Scale and the Pain Attribute of the Health Utilities Index-3

Authors: Michael Iskedjian, Barbara Jaszewski, Olivier Desjardins

Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Issue 4/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background: Pain is widespread, but has not yet been the focus of measurement in terms of patient preferences. This type of measure is needed for pharmacoeconomic analyses of pain medications.
Objective: Our objective was to compare scores from the Box Score (BS)-11 scale and the pain attribute of the Health Utilities Index (HUI)-3.Methods: English- and/or French-speaking adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were recruited from pain clinics in four Canadian metropolitan areas (Toronto, Ottawa, Edmonton, Vancouver). Those providing informed consent completed both pain scales, assessing their average pain level over the previous 4 weeks. Kendall’s Tau-b was calculated between score sets. Answers provided by patients were then used to determine the proportions of each of the BS- 11 scores that mapped onto each of the five HUI-3 pain scores.
Results: Six of the 516 completed questionnaires had missing information, leaving 510 for analysis. The average age of patients was 49.5 ± 11.9 years; 70% were female. Tau-b was reasonably large and statistically significant between the scales (τ = 0.685; p<0.001). No patients had zero scores on BS-11, and two patients scored 1, yielding inconclusive results for that score. Eight of the remaining nine BS-11 scores mapped ≥60% onto HUI-3 pain scores. BS-11 scores 2 and 10 had the best mapping (88% and 94%, respectively).
Conclusions: BS-11 scores can be mapped onto the pain attribute of the HUI-3 with a high degree of correlation.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Task Force on Taxonomy, Merskey H, Bogduk N, editors. Classification of chronic pain. Seattle (WA): IASP Press, 1994:209–14 Task Force on Taxonomy, Merskey H, Bogduk N, editors. Classification of chronic pain. Seattle (WA): IASP Press, 1994:209–14
2.
go back to reference The Merck manual of diagnosis and therapy. Whitehouse Station (NJ): Merck Research Laboratories, 2004 The Merck manual of diagnosis and therapy. Whitehouse Station (NJ): Merck Research Laboratories, 2004
3.
go back to reference Croft P, Rigby A, Boswell R, et al. The prevalence of chronic widespread pain in the general population. J Rheumatol 1993; 20: 710–3PubMed Croft P, Rigby A, Boswell R, et al. The prevalence of chronic widespread pain in the general population. J Rheumatol 1993; 20: 710–3PubMed
4.
go back to reference Goudas L, Bloch R, Gialeli-Goudas M, et al. The epidemiology of cancer pain. Cancer Invest 2005; 23: 182–90PubMedCrossRef Goudas L, Bloch R, Gialeli-Goudas M, et al. The epidemiology of cancer pain. Cancer Invest 2005; 23: 182–90PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Potter J, Higginson I. Pain experienced by lung cancer patients: a review of prevalence, causes and pathophysiology. Lung Cancer 2004; 43: 247–57PubMedCrossRef Potter J, Higginson I. Pain experienced by lung cancer patients: a review of prevalence, causes and pathophysiology. Lung Cancer 2004; 43: 247–57PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005 Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005
7.
go back to reference Jensen M, Karoly P, O’Riordan E, et al. The subjective experience of acute pain: an assessment of the utility of 10 indices. Clin J Pain 1989; 5: 153–9PubMedCrossRef Jensen M, Karoly P, O’Riordan E, et al. The subjective experience of acute pain: an assessment of the utility of 10 indices. Clin J Pain 1989; 5: 153–9PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Jensen M, Miller L, Fisher L. Assessment of pain during medical procedures: a comparison of three scales. Clin J Pain 1998; 14: 343–9PubMedCrossRef Jensen M, Miller L, Fisher L. Assessment of pain during medical procedures: a comparison of three scales. Clin J Pain 1998; 14: 343–9PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Herr K, Spratt K, Mobily P, et al. Pain intensity assessment in older adults: use of experimental pain to compare psychometric properties and usability of selected pain scales with younger adults. Clin J Pain 2004; 20: 207–19PubMedCrossRef Herr K, Spratt K, Mobily P, et al. Pain intensity assessment in older adults: use of experimental pain to compare psychometric properties and usability of selected pain scales with younger adults. Clin J Pain 2004; 20: 207–19PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Furlong WJ, Feeny DH, Torrance G, et al. The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann Med 2001; 33: 375–84PubMedCrossRef Furlong WJ, Feeny DH, Torrance G, et al. The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann Med 2001; 33: 375–84PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Boyle M, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. Reliability of the Health Utilities Index-Mark III used in the 1991 Cycle 6 General Social Survey Health Questionnaire. Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 249–57PubMedCrossRef Boyle M, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. Reliability of the Health Utilities Index-Mark III used in the 1991 Cycle 6 General Social Survey Health Questionnaire. Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 249–57PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. The Health Utilities Index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003 Oct 16; 1: 54PubMedCrossRef Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. The Health Utilities Index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003 Oct 16; 1: 54PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Fisk J, Brown M, Sketris I, et al. A comparison of health utility measures for the evaluation of multiple sclerosis treatments. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2005; 76: 58–63PubMedCrossRef Fisk J, Brown M, Sketris I, et al. A comparison of health utility measures for the evaluation of multiple sclerosis treatments. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2005; 76: 58–63PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Cranney A, Coyle D, Hopman W, et al. Prospective evaluation of preferences and quality of life in women with hip fractures. J Rheumatol 2005; 32: 2393–9PubMed Cranney A, Coyle D, Hopman W, et al. Prospective evaluation of preferences and quality of life in women with hip fractures. J Rheumatol 2005; 32: 2393–9PubMed
15.
go back to reference McDonough C, Grove M, Tosteson T, et al. Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-36-derived societal health state values among Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) participants. Qual Life Res 2005; 14: 1321–32PubMedCrossRef McDonough C, Grove M, Tosteson T, et al. Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-36-derived societal health state values among Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) participants. Qual Life Res 2005; 14: 1321–32PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Kaplan R, Groessl EK, Sengupta N, et al. Comparison of measured utility scores and imputed scores from the SF-36 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care 2005; 43: 79–87PubMed Kaplan R, Groessl EK, Sengupta N, et al. Comparison of measured utility scores and imputed scores from the SF-36 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care 2005; 43: 79–87PubMed
17.
go back to reference Heidenheim A, Muirhead N, Moist L, et al. Patient quality of life on quotidian hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis 2003; 42: 36–41PubMedCrossRef Heidenheim A, Muirhead N, Moist L, et al. Patient quality of life on quotidian hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis 2003; 42: 36–41PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Wiebe S, Matijevic S, Eliasziw M, et al. Clinically important change in quality of life in epilepsy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002; 73: 116–20PubMedCrossRef Wiebe S, Matijevic S, Eliasziw M, et al. Clinically important change in quality of life in epilepsy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002; 73: 116–20PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Hatoum H, Brazier J, Akhras K. Comparison of the HU13 with the SF-36 preference based SF-6D in a clinical trial setting. Value Health 2004; 7: 602–9PubMedCrossRef Hatoum H, Brazier J, Akhras K. Comparison of the HU13 with the SF-36 preference based SF-6D in a clinical trial setting. Value Health 2004; 7: 602–9PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Feeney D, Wu L, Eng K. Comparing Short Form 6D, standard gamble, and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 utility scores: results from total hip arthroplasty patients. Qual Life Res 2004; 13: 1659–70CrossRef Feeney D, Wu L, Eng K. Comparing Short Form 6D, standard gamble, and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 utility scores: results from total hip arthroplasty patients. Qual Life Res 2004; 13: 1659–70CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Walters S, Brazier J. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 2005; 14: 1523–32PubMedCrossRef Walters S, Brazier J. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 2005; 14: 1523–32PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Kopec J, Willison K. A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56: 317–25PubMedCrossRef Kopec J, Willison K. A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56: 317–25PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparison of Scores Derived from the Box Score-11 Scale and the Pain Attribute of the Health Utilities Index-3
Authors
Michael Iskedjian
Barbara Jaszewski
Olivier Desjardins
Publication date
01-12-2011
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Issue 4/2011
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Electronic ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/11587210-000000000-00000

Other articles of this Issue 4/2011

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 4/2011 Go to the issue

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgment

Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.