Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

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.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Quality of Life Research
Published in: Quality of Life Research 5/2007

Open Access 01-06-2007 | Original Paper

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

Authors: Mathieu F. (Bas) Janssen, Erwin Birnie, Gouke J. Bonsel

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 5/2007

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Literature
1.
Guyatt, G. H., Feeny, D. H., & Patrick, D. L. (1993). Measuring health-related quality-of-life. Annals of Internal Medicine, 118, 622–629.PubMed
2.
Mishoe, S. C., & Maclean, J. R. (2001). Assessment of health-related quality of life. Respiratory Care, 46, 1236–1257.PubMed
3.
Brazier, J., Deverill, M., Green, C., Harper, R., & Booth, A. (1999). A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment, 3, 1–164.
4.
Coons, S. J., Rao, S., Keininger, D. L., & Hays, R. D. (2000). A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics, 17, 13–35.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Rabin R., de Charro F. (2001) EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annals of Medicine 33, 337–343.PubMed
6.
Feeny, D., Furlong, W., & Torrance, G. (1999). The health utilities index: An update. Quality of Life Newsletter, 22, 8–9.
7.
Horsman, J., Furlong, W., Feeny, D., & Torrance, G. (2003). The Health Utilities Index (HUI(R)): Concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 1, 54.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Brooks, R., Rabin, R. E., de Charro, F. Th. (2003). The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: A European perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer academic publishers.
9.
Furlong, W. J., Feeny, D. H., Torrance, G. W., & Barr, R. D. (2001). The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Annals of Medicine, 33, 375–384.PubMed
10.
Kopec, J., & Willison, K. D. (2003). A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56, 317–325.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Brazier, J., & Deverill, M. (1999). A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: learning from psychometrics. Health Economics, 8, 41–51.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Brazier, J., Jones, N., & Kind, P. (1993). Testing the validity of the Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 2, 169–80.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Sintonen, H. (2001). The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Annals of Medicine, 33, 328–336.PubMed
14.
Murray, C. J., & Lopez, A. D. (2000). Progress and directions in refining the global burden of disease approach: a response to Williams. Health Economics, 9, 69–82.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Guyatt, H., Kirshner, B., & Jaeschke, R. (1992). Measuring health status: what are the necessary measurement properties? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 45, 1341–1345.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. W. (1995). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
Shannon, C. E (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423.
18.
Macran, S., Weatherly, H., & Kind, P. (2003). Measuring population health—A comparison of three generic health status measures. Medical Care, 41, 218–231.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Myers, C., & Wilks, D. (1999). Comparison of Euroqol EQ-5D and SF-36 in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Quality of Life Research, 8, 9–16.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Conner-Spady, B., & Suarez-Almazor, M. E. (2003). Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Medical Care, 41, 791–801.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Shaw, J. W., Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (2005). US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Medical Care, 43, 203–220.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Johnson, J. A., Luo, N., Shaw, J. W., Kind, P., & Coons, S. J. (2005). Valuations of EQ-5D health states—Are the United States and United Kingdom different? Medical Care, 43, 221–228.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Furlong, W., Feeny, D., & Torrance, G. W. (2000). Health Utilities Index (HUI ®) procudures manual: algorithm for determining HUI Mark 2 (HUI2)/Mark 3 (HUI3) health status classification levels, health states, single attribute level utility scores and overall health-related quality of life utility scores, from 15-item self-complete health status questionnaires. Dundas: Ontario, Health Utilities Inc.
24.
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
25.
Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics: or, control, and communication in the animal and the machine. Cambridge: MIT Press.
26.
Krebs, C. J. (1989). Ecological methodology. New York: Harper & Row.
27.
Miller, G. A, & Frick, F. C. (1949). Statistical behavioristics and sequences of responses. Psychological Review, 56, 311–24.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Reitsma, H. (1999). Registers in cardiovascular epidemiology. University of Amsterdam
29.
Rao, G. S., Hamid, Z., & Rao, J. S. (1979). The information content of DNA and evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 81, 803–807.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Yockey, H. P. (1992). Information theory and molecular biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Basharin, G. P. (1959). On a statistical estimate for the entropy of a sequence of independent random variables. Theory of Probability and its Applications, 4, 333–336.CrossRef
32.
Lloyd, M., & Ghelardi, R. J. (1964). A table for calculating the ’equitability’ component of species diversity. Journal of Animal Ecology, 33, 217–225.CrossRef
33.
Pielou, E. C. (1966). The measurement of diversity in different types of biological collections. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 13, 131–144.CrossRef
34.
Peet, R. K. (1974). The measurement of species diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 5, 285–307.CrossRef
35.
Mouillot, D., & Leprêtre, A. (1999). A comparison of species diversity estimators.Research on Population Ecology, 41, 203–215.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Evaluating the discriminatory power of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in a US general population survey using Shannon’s indices
Authors
Mathieu F. (Bas) Janssen
Erwin Birnie
Gouke J. Bonsel
Publication date
01-06-2007
Publisher
Kluwer Academic Publishers
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 5/2007
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-006-9160-6

Other articles of this Issue 5/2007

Quality of Life Research 5/2007 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Effectiveness of a psycho-educational intervention for reducing burden in latin american families of patients with schizophrenia

Original Paper

Content comparison of health-related quality of life measures used in stroke based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF): a systematic review

OriginalPaper

Quality-of-life outcome after hallux valgus surgery

Original Paper

Small-cell lung cancer patients are just ‘a little bit’ tired: response shift and self-presentation in the measurement of fatigue

Original Paper

The mathematical relationship among different forms of responsiveness coefficients

Erratum

Issues in conducting cross-cultural research: implementation of an agreed international protocol designed by the WHOQOL Group for the conduct of focus groups eliciting the quality of life of older adults