Misinterpretation with norm-based scoring of health status in adults with type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND: Interpretations of profile and preference based measure scores can differ. Profile measures often use a norm-based scoring algorithm where each scale is scored to have a standardized mean and standard deviation, relative to the general population scores/norms (i.e., norm-based). Preference-based index measures generate an overall scores on the conventional scale in which 0.00 is assigned to dead and 1.00 is assigned to perfect health. Our objective was to investigate the interpretation of norm-based scoring of generic health status measures in a population of adults with type 1 diabetes by comparing norm-based health status scores and preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQL) scores. METHODS: Data were collected through self-complete questionnaires sent to patients with type 1 diabetes. The RAND-36 and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) were included. RESULTS: A total of 216 (61%) questionnaires were returned. The respondent sample was predominantly female (58.8%); had a mean (SD) age of 37.1 (14.3) years and a mean duration of diabetes of 20.9 (12.4) years. Mean (SD) health status scores were: RAND-36 PHC 47.9 (9.4), RAND-36 MHC 47.2 (11.8), and HUI3 0.78 (0.23). Histograms of these scores show substantial left skew. HUI3 scores were similar to those previously reported for diabetes in the general Canadian population. Physical and mental health summary scores of the RAND-36 suggest that this population is as healthy as the general adult population. CONCLUSION: In this sample, a preference-based measure indicated poorer health, consistent with clinical evidence, whereas a norm-based measure indicated health similar to the average for the general population. Norm-based scoring measure may provide misleading interpretations in populations when health status is not normally distributed

Comparison of health state utility estimates from instrument-based and vignette-based methods: a case study in kidney disease.

OBJECTIVE: We take advantage of a rare occurrence when two different studies report on the estimation of quality of life utilities for the same health states to assess convergence of the reported measures. Health state utilities are important inputs into health economic models that estimate the impact of new medical technologies using a common metric of health gain-the quality adjusted life-year. RESULTS: We find low concordance between the two measures which is concerning in that this could have important ramifications for health care decision making based on estimated cost-effectiveness. We explore possible reasons for the discrepancy between the two measures and draw implications for the design of future studies

Health-related quality of life deficits associated with varying degrees of disease severity in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a chronic medical condition accompanied by a considerable health-related quality of life (HRQL) burden. The purpose of this analysis was to use generic measures of HRQL to describe HRQL deficits associated with varying degrees of severity of type 2 diabetes. METHODS: The RAND-12 physical and mental health composites (PHC and MHC, respectively) and Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) were self-completed by 372 subjects enrolled in a prospective, controlled study of an intervention to improve care for individuals with type 2 diabetes in rural communities. Analysis of covariance was used to assess differences in HRQL according to disease severity and control of blood glucose. Disease severity was defined in terms of treatment intensity, emergency room visits and absenteeism from work specifically attributable to diabetes. To control for potential confounding, the analysis was adjusted for important sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: The PHC and MHC were significantly lower for individuals treated with insulin as compared to diet alone (PHC: 41.01 vs 45.11, MHC: 43.23 vs 47.00, p < 0.05). Individuals treated with insulin had lower scores on the vision, emotion and pain attributes of the HUI3 than individuals managed with oral medication or diet. The PHC, MHC, pain attribute and overall score on the HUI3 captured substantial decrements in HRQL associated with absenteeism from work due to diabetes, while the burden associated with emergency room utilization for diabetes was seen in the PHC and HUI3 pain attribute. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that generic measures of HRQL captured deficits associated with more severe disease in type 2 diabetes

Comparing the health of low income and less well educated groups in the United States and Canada

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A limited number of health status and health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures have been used for inter-country comparisons of population health. We compared the health of Canadians and Americans using a preference-based measure.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health (JCUSH) 2002–03 conducted a comprehensive cross-sectional telephone survey on the health of community-dwelling residents in Canada and the US (n = 8688). A preference-based measure, the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3), was included in the JCUSH. Health status was analyzed for the entire population and white population only in both countries. Mean HUI3 overall scores were compared for both countries. A linear regression determinants of health model was estimated to account for differences in health between Canada and the US. Estimation with bootstraps was used to derive variance estimates that account for the survey's complex sampling design of clustering and stratification.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Income is associated with health in both countries. In the lowest income quintile, Canadians are healthier than Americans. At lower levels of education, again Canadians are healthier than Americans. Differences in health among subjects in the JCUSH are explained by age, gender, education, income, marital status, and country of residence.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>On average, population health in Canada and the US is similar. However, health disparities between Canadians and Americans exist at lower levels of education and income with Americans worse off. The results highlight the usefulness of continuous preference-based measures of population health such as the HUI3.</p

Comparing population health in the United States and Canada

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The objective of the paper is to compare population health in the United States (US) and Canada. Although the two countries are very similar in many ways, there are potentially important differences in the levels of social and economic inequality and the organization and financing of and access to health care in the two countries.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data are from the Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health 2002/03. The Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) was used to measure overall health-related quality of life (HRQL). Mean HUI3 scores were compared, adjusting for major determinants of health, including body mass index, smoking, education, gender, race, and income. In addition, estimates of life expectancy were compared. Finally, mean HUI3 scores by age and gender and Canadian and US life tables were used to estimate health-adjusted life expectancy (HALE).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Life expectancy in Canada is higher than in the US. For those < 40 years, there were no differences in HRQL between the US and Canada. For the 40+ group, HRQL appears to be higher in Canada. The results comparing the white-only population in both countries were very similar. For a 19-year-old, HALE was 52.0 years in Canada and 49.3 in the US.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The population of Canada appears to be substantially healthier than the US population with respect to life expectancy, HRQL, and HALE. Factors that account for the difference may include access to health care over the full life span (universal health insurance) and lower levels of social and economic inequality, especially among the elderly.</p

Feasibility and validity of the Health Status Classification System-Preschool (HSCS-PS) in a large community sample: The Generation R study

Objectives To evaluate the feasibility, discriminant validity and concurrent validity of the Health Status Classification System-Preschool (HSCS-PS) in children aged 3 years in a large community sample in the Netherlands. Design/setting A prospective population-based cohort in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Participants A questionnaire was administrated to a sample of parents of 4546 children (36.7±1.5 months). Outcome measures Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of children was measured by HSCS-PS. The HSCS-PS consists of 10 original domains. Two single-item measures of General health' and Behavior' were added. A disability score was calculated by summing up all 10 original domains to describe the overall health status. Feasibility was assessed by the response rate, percentages of missing answers, score distributions and the presence of floor/ceiling effects. Discriminant validity was analysed between subgroups with predefined conditions: low birth weight, preterm birth, wheezing, Ear-Nose-Throat surgical procedures and behaviour problems. In the absence of another HRQOL measure, this study uses the single-items General health' and Behavior' as a first step to evaluate concurrent validity of the HSCS-PS. Results Feasibility: response rate was 69%. Ceiling effects were observed in all domains. Discriminant validity: the disability score discriminated clearly between subgroups of children born with a very low birth weight', very preterm birth', with four or more than four times wheezing', at least one ear-nose-throat surgical procedures', behaviour problems present' and the reference' group. Concurrent validity: HSCS-PS domains correlated better with hypothesised parallel additional domains than with other non-hypothesised original domains. Conclusions This study supports the feasibility and validity of the HSCS-PS among preschoolers in community settings. We recommend developing a utility-based scoring algorithm for the HSCS-PS. Further empirical studies and repeated evaluations in varied populations are recommended

Sex differences in the relative contribution of social and clinical factors to the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 measure of health-related quality of life in older home care clients

Abstract Background The heterogeneity evident among home care clients highlights the need for greater understanding of the clinical and social determinants of multi-dimensional health-related quality of life (HRQL) indices and of potential sex-differences in these determinants. We examined the relative contribution of social and clinical factors to HRQL among older home care clients and explored whether any of the observed associations varied by sex. Methods The Canadian-US sample included 514 clients. Self-reported HRQL was measured during in-home interviews (2002-04) using the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2). Data on clients' sociodemographic, health and clinical characteristics were obtained with the Minimum Data Set for Home Care. The relative associations between clients' characteristics and HUI2 scores were examined using multivariable linear regression models. Results Women had a significantly lower mean HUI2 score than men (0.48, 95%CI 0.46-0.50 vs. 0.52, 0.49-0.55). Clients with distressed caregivers and poor self-rated health exhibited significantly lower HRQL scores after adjustment for a comprehensive list of clinical conditions. Several other factors remained statistically significant (arthritis, psychiatric illness, bladder incontinence, urinary tract infection) or clinically important (reported loneliness, congestive heart failure, pressure ulcers) correlates of lower HUI2 scores in adjusted analyses. These associations generally did not vary significantly by sex. Conclusion For females and males, HRQL scores were negatively associated with conditions predictive or indicative of disability and with markers of psychosocial stress. Despite sex differences in the prevalence of social and clinical factors likely to affect HRQL, few varied significantly by sex in their relative impact on HUI2 scores. Further exploration of differences in the relative importance of clinical and psychosocial well-being (e.g., loneliness) to HRQL among female and male clients may help guide the development of sex-specific strategies for risk screening and care management

Australian utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30

Background: The EORTC QLU-C10D is a new multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the widely-used cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. The QLU-C10D contains ten dimensions (Physical, Role, Social and Emotional Functioning; Pain, Fatigue, Sleep, Appetite, Nausea, Bowel Problems), each with 4 levels. To be used in cost-utility analysis, country-specific valuation sets are required. Objective: To provide Australian utility weights for the QLU-C10D. Methods: An Australian online panel was quota sampled to ensure population representativeness by sex and age (≥18y). Participants completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) consisting of 16 choice-pairs. Each pair comprised two QLU-C10D health states plus life expectancy. Data were analysed using conditional logistic regression, parameterised to fit the quality-adjusted life-year framework. Utility weights were calculated as the ratio of each QOL dimension-level coefficient to the coefficient on life expectancy. Results: 1979 panel members opted-in, 1904 (96%) completed at least one choice-pair, and 1846 (93%) completed all 16 choice-pairs. Dimension weights were generally monotonic: poorer levels within each dimension were generally associated with greater utility decrements. The dimensions that impacted most on choice were, in order, Physical Functioning, Pain, Role Functioning and Emotional Functioning. Oncology-relevant dimensions with moderate impact were Nausea and Bowel Problems. Fatigue, Trouble Sleeping and Appetite had relatively small impact. The value of the worst health state was -0.096, somewhat worse than death. Conclusions: This study provides the first country-specific value set for the QLU-C10D, which can facilitate cost-utility analyses when applied to data collected with the EORTC QLQ-C30, prospectively and retrospectively