Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development of a Preference-Weighted Health Status Classification System in France: The Health Utilities Index 3

  • Published:
Health Care Management Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Health Utilities Index is a generic multiattribute preference-based system for assessing health-related quality of life, devised by Torrance et al. It is being used in cost-effectiveness evaluations in North America and in international multicentre studies but was not available in France. Following adaptation of the HUI3 classification in France, the purpose of the reported investigation was to derive French preference weights. This article provides a reminder of the theoretical foundations used to model the multiattribute utility function. Within this framework, a multiattribute multiplicative aggregate utility function was constructed in accordance with the explicitly decomposed approach. The study took place in June 1999 over a sample of 365 persons from the French general population, aged between 20 and 65, and not suffering from any chronic or incapacitating illness. The recruitment procedure was based upon a random selection of individuals, using the phone book. Interviews took place in the homes of the interviewees. The methods of revelation (VAS and SG) were applied by setting the value of the best possible state of the HUI3 a priori at 1, and leaving a choice between two states (worst possible state, death) for 0. The aggregated individuals (person-mean and median) were calculated and the multiplicative utility functions constructed. A comparison of the calculated utilities with the observed ones provides a primary indicator of the validity of the person-mean or median functions constructed. The slight absolute differences obtained between observed and calculated utilities and the low RMSE scores lead us towards a favourable conclusion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. G. Ardine deWits, J. Busschbach and F. de Charro, Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count? Health Economics 9 (2000) 109-126.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  3. C. Buron, Utilité et préférences en univers certain et en univers risqué: une application de la théorie de l'utilité multiattribut en économie de la santé Thèse de doctorat en Science Economique, Université Panthéon-Assas (Paris II), soutenue le 18 janvier 1999.

  4. W.B. Carter, R.A. Bobitt, M. Bergner and B.S. Gibson, Validation of interval scaling: The sickness impact profile, Health Services Research 11(4) (1976) 516-528.

    Google Scholar 

  5. N. Costet, C. Le Galès, C. Buron, K. Kinkor, M. Mesbah, J. Chwalow, the clinical and economic working groups and G. Slama, French crosscultural adaptation of the Health Utilities Indexes Mark 2 (HUI2) and 3 (HUI3) classification systems, Quality of Life Research 7(3) (1998) 245-256.

    Google Scholar 

  6. P. Dolan, Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states, Medical Care 35(11) (1997) 1095-1108.

    Google Scholar 

  7. P. Dolan, Aggregating health states valuations, Journal of Health Services Research 2(3) (1997) 160-165.

    Google Scholar 

  8. P. Dolan, C. Gudex, P. Kind and A. Williams, A social tariff for EuroQol: Results from a UK general population survey, Discussion Paper 138, Center for Health Economics, University of York, York (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  9. J.S. Dyer, W. Farrell and P. Bradley, Utility functions for test performance, Management Sciences 20 (1973) 507-519.

    Google Scholar 

  10. J.S. Dyer and R.A. Sarin, Measurable multiattribute value functions, Operations Research 24 (1979) 220-243.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J.S. Dyer and R.A. Sarin, Relative risk aversion, Management Sciences 28(8) (1982) 875-886.

    Google Scholar 

  12. L. Eeckhoudt, Expected utility theory — Is it normative or simply “practical”? Medical Decision Making 16(1) (1996) 12-13.

    Google Scholar 

  13. M.L. Essink-Bot, M.E. Stoudhard and G.J. Bonsel, Generalizability of valuations on health states collected with the EuroQol questionnaire, Health Economics 2 (1993) 237-246.

    Google Scholar 

  14. P.H. Farquhar, A survey of multi-attribute utility theory and application, TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences 6 (1977) 59-89.

    Google Scholar 

  15. G.W. Fischer, Utility models for multiple objective decisions: Do they accurately represent human preferences? Decision Sciences 10(3) (1979) 451-479.

    Google Scholar 

  16. P.C. Fishburn, Independence in utility theory with whole product sets, Operations Research 13 (1965) 28-45.

    Google Scholar 

  17. P.C. Fishburn and G. Kochenberger, Two-piece Von Neumann— Morgenstern utility functions, Decision Sciences 10 (1979) 503-518.

    Google Scholar 

  18. W. Furlong, D. Feeny, G.W. Torrance, C.H. Goldsmith, S. DePauw, Z. Zhu and M. Boyle, Multiplicative multi-attribute utility function for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) System: A technical report, Working paper series no98-11, CHEPA, McMaster University, Hamilton (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  19. M.R. Gold, J.E. Siegel, L.B. Russel and M.C. Weinstein, eds., Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine (Oxford University Press, New York, 1996).

  20. J.C. Harsanyi, Cardinal utility in welfare economics and in the theory of risk taking, Journal of Political Economy 61 (1953) 434-435.

    Google Scholar 

  21. J.C. Harsanyi, Cardinal welfare, individual ethics and interpersonal comparison of utility, Journal of Political Economy 63 (1955) 309-321.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Health Utilities Group (2000): http://www-fhs.mcmaster.ca/hug/index. htm.

  23. J.A. Johnson, S.J. Coons, A. Ergo and G. Szava-Kovats, Valuation of EuroQol (EQ-5D) health states in an Adult US sample, PharmacoEconomics 13(4) (1998) 421-433.

    Google Scholar 

  24. R.M. Kaplan, J.W. Bush and C.C. Berry, The reliability, stability and generalisability of a health status index, Social Statistics Section. American Statistical Association Proceedings (1978) 704-709.

  25. R.L. Keeney, Utility independence and preferences for multiattributed consequences, Operations Research 19 (1971) 875-893.

    Google Scholar 

  26. R.L. Keeney, Multiplicative utility functions, Operations Research 22 (1974) 22-34.

    Google Scholar 

  27. R.L. Keeney and H. Raïffa, Decision with Multiple Objectives (Wiley, New York, 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  28. L.R. Keller, An empirical investigation of relative risk aversion, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC 15(4) (1985) 475-482.

    Google Scholar 

  29. C. Le Galès, N. Costet, C. Buron and G. Slama, Développement d'un indicateur d'états de santé pondéré par les préférences, Working paper, CHEAR, INSERM U537, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre (2000).

  30. C. Le Galès, N. Costet, J.C. Gentet, C. Kalifa, D. Frappaz, C. Edan, E. Sariban, D. Plantaz and F. Doz, Cross-cultural adaptation of a health status classification in children with cancer. First results of the French adaptation of the HUI2 and 3, International Journal of Cancer 12 (1999) 112-118.

    Google Scholar 

  31. H.A. Llewellyn-Thomas, H.J. Sutherland et al., Methodological issues in obtaining values for health states, Medical Care 22 (1984) 543-552.

    Google Scholar 

  32. A. Mehrez and A. Gafni, An empirical evaluation of two assessment methods for utility measurement for life years, Socio-Economic Planification Science 21(6) (1987) 371-375.

    Google Scholar 

  33. E. Nord, EuroQol: health-related quality of life measurement. Valuation of health states by the general public in Norway, Health Policy 18 (1991) 25-36.

    Google Scholar 

  34. A.M. O'Connor, N.F. Boyd, P. Warde and Stolbach, Eliciting preferences for alternative drug therapies in oncology: Influence of treatment outcome description, elicitation technique and treatment experience on preferences, Journal of Chronic Diseases 40 (1987) 811-818.

    Google Scholar 

  35. D.L. Patrick and Y. Chiang, eds., Health outcomes methodology: Symposium Proceedings, Medical Care 29(9 Suppl. II) (2000).

  36. D.L. Patrick, H.E. Starks, K.C. Cain, R.F. Uhlmann and R.A. Pearlman, Measuring preferences for health states worse than death, Medical Decision Making 14(1) (1994) 9-18.

    Google Scholar 

  37. J.W. Pratt, Risk aversion in the small and in the large, Econometrica 32 (1964) 122-136.

    Google Scholar 

  38. J.L. Read, R.J. Quinn, D.M. Berwick, H.V. Fineberg and M.C. Weinstein, Preferences for health outcomes. Comparison of assessment methods, Medical Decision Making 4(3) (1984) 315-329.

    Google Scholar 

  39. D.A. Revicki, N.K. Leidy, F. Brennan-Diemer, C. Thompson and A. Togias, Development and preliminary validation of the multiattribute Rhinitis Symptom Utility Index, Quality of Life Research 7(8) (1998) 693-702.

    Google Scholar 

  40. R. Rosser and P. Kind, A scale of valuations of states of illness: Is there a social consensus? International Journal Epidemiology 7(4) (1978) 347-358.

    Google Scholar 

  41. G.W. Torrance, Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques, Socio-Economic Planification Science 10 (1976) 129-136.

    Google Scholar 

  42. G.W. Torrance, W. Furlong, D. Feeny and M. Boyle, Multiattribute preference function. Health Utility Index, PharmacoEconomics 7(6) (1995) 503-520.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  44. J. Von Neumann and O. Morgenstern, Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour, 2nd edn. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1947) (1944, 1st edn.).

    Google Scholar 

  45. A.D. Wolfson, A.J. Sinclair, C. Bombardier and A. Mc Geer, Preference measurements for functional status in stroke patients: Interrater and intertechnique comparaisons, in: Values and Long Term Care, eds. R.L. Kane and R.A. Kane (Lexington Books, Lexington, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CHEAR, INSERM U537, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France

    Catherine Le Galès, Catherine Buron, Nathalie Costet & Sophia Rosman

  2. Hôtel-Dieu, Service de Diabètologie, Paris, France

    Pr. Gérard Slama

Authors
  1. Catherine Le Galès
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catherine Buron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nathalie Costet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sophia Rosman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pr. Gérard Slama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine Le Galès.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Le Galès, C., Buron, C., Costet, N. et al. Development of a Preference-Weighted Health Status Classification System in France: The Health Utilities Index 3. Health Care Management Science 5, 41–51 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013201102918

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013201102918

Keywords

Search

Navigation