Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-10-2007

Choosing between measures: comparison of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in persons with hearing complaints

Authors: Janneke P. C. Grutters, Manuela A. Joore, Frans van der Horst, Hans Verschuure, Wouter A. Dreschler, Lucien J. C. Anteunis

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 8/2007

Abstract

Objectives

To generate insight into the differences between utility measures EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D), Health Utilities Index Mark II (HUI2) and Mark III (HUI3) and their impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for hearing aid fitting

Methods

Persons with hearing complaints completed EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 at baseline and, when applicable, after hearing aid fitting. Practicality, construct validity, agreement, responsiveness and impact on the ICER were examined.

Results

All measures had high completion rates. HUI3 was capable of discriminating between clinically distinctive groups. Utility scores (n = 315) for EQ-5D UK and Dutch tariff (0.83; 0.86), HUI2 (0.77) and HUI3 (0.61) were significantly different, agreement was low to moderate. Change after hearing aid fitting (n = 70) for HUI2 (0.07) and HUI3 (0.12) was statistically significant, unlike the EQ-5D UK (0.01) and Dutch (0.00) tariff. ICERs varied from €647,209/QALY for the EQ-5D Dutch tariff to €15,811/QALY for HUI3.

Conclusion

Utility scores, utility gain and ICERs heavily depend on the measure that is used to elicit them. This study indicates HUI3 as the instrument of first choice when measuring utility in a population with hearing complaints, but emphasizes the importance of a clear notion of what constitutes utility with regard to economic analyses.

Dalton, D. S., Cruickshanks, K. J., Klein, B. E., Klein, R., Wiley, T. L., & Nondahl, D. M. (2003). The impact of hearing loss on quality of life in older adults. Gerontologist, 43(5), 661–668.PubMed

Davis, A. C. (1995). Hearing in adults. London: Whurr Publishers Ltd.

Appollonio, I., Carabellese, C., Frattola, L., & Trabucchi, M. (1996). Effects of sensory aids on the quality of life and mortality of elderly people: A multivariate analysis. Age & Ageing, 25(2), 89–96.CrossRef

Mulrow, C. D., Aguilar, C., Endicott, J. E., Tuley, M. R., Velez, R., Charlip, W. S., Rhodes, M. C., Hill, J. A., & DeNino, L. A. 1990). Quality-of-life changes and hearing impairment. A randomized trial. Annals of Internal Medicine, 113(3): 188–194.PubMed

Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Torrance, G. W., O’Brien, B. J., & Stoddard, G. L. (2005). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bess, F. H. (2000). The role of generic health-related quality of life measures in establishing audiological rehabilitation outcomes. Ear & Hearing, 21(4 Suppl): 74S–79S.

Joore, M. A., Brunenberg, D. E., Chenault, M. N., & Anteunis, L. J. (2003). Societal effects of hearing aid fitting among the moderately hearing impaired. International Journal of Audiology, 42(3), 152–160.PubMedCrossRef

Joore, M. A., Van Der Stel H, Peters, H. J., Boas, G. M., & Anteunis, L. J. (2003). The cost-effectiveness of hearing-aid fitting in the Netherlands. Archives of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, 129(3), 297–304.CrossRef

Barton, G. R., Bankart, J., Davis, A. C. & Summerfield, Q. A. (2004). Comparing Utility Scores before and after hearing-aid provision: Results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 3(2), 103–105.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Bosch, J. L., & Hunink, M. G. (2000). Comparison of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D in patients treated for intermittent claudication. Quality of Life Research, 9(6), 591–601.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Busschbach, J. (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics, 13(9), 873–884.PubMedCrossRef

12.

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(7), 791–801.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Feeny, D., Wu, L., & Eng, K. (2004). Comparing short form 6D, standard gamble, and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 utility scores: Results from total hip arthroplasty patients. Quality of Life Research, 13(10), 1659–1670.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Kaplan, R. M., Groessl, E. J., Sengupta N, Sieber, W. J., & Ganiats, T. G. (2005). Comparison of measured utility scores and imputed scores from the SF-36 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Medical Care, 43(1), 79–87.PubMed

15.

Kopec, J. A., & Willison, K. D. (2003). A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(4), 317–325.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Longworth, L., & Bryan S. (2003). An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Health Economics, 12(12), 1061–1067.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Marra, C. A., Esdaile, J. M., Guh D, Kopec, J. A., Brazier, J. E., Koehler, B. E., Chalmers, A., & Anis, A. H. (2004). A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis. Medical Care, 42(11), 1125–1131.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Marra, C. A., Woolcott, J. C., Kopec, J. A., Shojania, K., Offer, R., Brazier, J. E., Esdaile, J. M., & Anis, A. H. (2005). A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Social Science & Medicine, 60(7), 1571–1582.CrossRef

19.

O’Brien, B. J., Spath, M., Blackhouse, G., Severens, J. L., Dorian, P., & Brazier, J. (2003). A view from the bridge: Agreement between the SF-6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index. Health Economics, 12(11), 975–981.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Oostenbrink, R., Moll, H. A., & Essink-Bot, M. L. (2002). The EQ-5D and the Health Utilities Index for permanent sequelae after meningitis: A head-to-head comparison. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 55(8), 791–799.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Petrou, S., Hockley, C. (2005). An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Economics, 14(11), 1169–1189.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Espallargues, M., Czoski-Murray, C. J., Bansback, N. J., Carlton, J., Lewis, G. M., Hughes, L. A., Brand, C. S., & Brazier, J. E. (2005). The impact of age-related macular degeneration on health status utility values. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 46(11), 4016–4023.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Brazier, J., & Deverill M. (1999). A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics. Health Economics, 8(1), 41–51.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Pickard, A. S., Johnson, J. A., & Feeny, D. H. (2005). Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Quality of Life Research, 14(1), 207–219.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Rasanen, P., Roine, E., Sintonen, H., Semberg-Konttinen, V., Ryynanen, O. P., & Roine, R. (2006). Use of quality-adjusted life years for the estimation of effectiveness of health care: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 22(2), 235–241.PubMed

26.

Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Lamers, L. M., Stalmeier, P. F., McDonnell, J., Krabbe, P. F., van Busschbach, J. J. (2005). Kwaliteit van leven meten in economische evaluaties: het Nederlands EQ-5D-tarief. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, 149(28), 1574–1578.PubMed

28.

Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Boyle, M., & Torrance, G. W. (1995). Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics, 7(6), 490–502.

29.

The EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.

30.

Torrance, G. W., Feeny, D. H., Furlong, W. J., Barr, R. D., Zhang Y, Wang, Q. (1996). Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Medical Care, 34(7), 702–722.

31.

Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., Denton, M., & Boyle, M. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128.PubMedCrossRef

32.

AZOS working group, Final report AZOS. 2006, Health Care Insurance Board: Diemen.

33.

Holland, R., Smith, R. D., Harvey, I., Swift, L., & Lenaghan, E. (2004). Assessing quality of life in the elderly: A direct comparison of the EQ-5D and AQoL. Health Economics, 13(8), 793–805.PubMedCrossRef

34.

GrossPortney, L., & Watkins, M. P. (1993). Foundations of clinical research. Norwalk: Appleton & Lange.

35.

Burstrom, K., Johannesson, M., & Diderichsen, F. (2001). Swedish population health-related quality of life results using the EQ-5D. Quality of Life Research, 10(7), 621–635.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Lubetkin, E. I., Jia, H., Franks, P., & Gold, M. R. (2005). Relationship among sociodemographic factors, clinical conditions, and health-related quality of life: examining the EQ-5D in the US general population. Quality of Life Research, 14(10), 2187–2196.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Devlin, N., Hansen, P., & Herbison P. (2000). Variations in self-reported health status: Results from a New Zealand survey. New Zealand Medical Journal, 113(1123), 517–520.PubMed

38.

Kind, P., Dolan, P., Gudex, C., & Williams, A. (1998). Variations in population health status: Results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. [see comment]. BMJ, 316(7133), 736–741.PubMed

39.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

40.

Oostenbrink, J. B., Koopmanschap, M. A., & Rutten, F. F. H. (2004). Manual for costing research (in Dutch). Amstelveen: College voor zorgverzekeringen.

41.

Briggs, A. H., Wonderling, D. E., & Mooney, C. Z. (1997). Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: A non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Economics, 6(4), 327–340.PubMedCrossRef

42.

CBO, (1998) Treatment and prevention of coronary heart disease through lowering serum cholesterol levels, National Organisation for Qality Assurance in Hospitals (CBO): Utrecht.

43.

Barton, G. R., Bankart, J., & Davis, A. C. (2005). A comparison of the quality of life of hearing-impaired people as estimated by three different utility measures. International Journal of Audiology, 44(3), 157–163.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Vuorialho, A., Karinen, P., & Sorri, M. (2006). Effect of hearing aids on hearing disability and quality of life in the elderly. International Journal of Audiology, 45(7), 400–405.PubMedCrossRef

45.

Vuorialho, A., Karinen, P., & Sorri, M. (2006). Counselling of hearing aid users is highly cost-effective. European Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, 263(11), 988–995.PubMedCrossRef

46.

Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37(1), 53–72.PubMedCrossRef

47.

Guyatt, G., Jaeschke, R., Feeny, D., & Patrick, D. (1996). Measurements in clinical trials: Choosing the right approach, In B. Spilker (Eds.), Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials (p. 41–48). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins .

Title: Choosing between measures: comparison of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in persons with hearing complaints
Authors: Janneke P. C. Grutters
Manuela A. Joore
Frans van der Horst
Hans Verschuure
Wouter A. Dreschler
Lucien J. C. Anteunis
Publication date: 01-10-2007
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Quality of Life Research / Issue 8/2007
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9237-x

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Choosing between measures: comparison of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in persons with hearing complaints

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2007

Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the disease-specific questionnaire MSQOL-54 in Serbian multiple sclerosis patients sample

Loneliness and health-related quality of life for the empty nest elderly in the rural area of a mountainous county in China

The relationship between quality of life and posttraumatic stress disorder or major depression for firefighters in Kaohsiung, Taiwan

The association between infant feeding pattern and mother’s quality of life in Taiwan

Quality of life among Turkish immigrants in Sweden

Controlling for occasion-specific effects when assessing the test–retest reliability of self-report health questionnaires