IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prs/ecoprv/ecop_0249-4744_2001_num_150_4_6350.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Développement d'un index d'états de santé pondéré par les utilités en population française : le Health Utilities Index

Author

Listed:
  • Catherine Le Galès
  • Catherine Buron
  • Nathalie Costet
  • Sophia Rosman
  • Gérard Slama

Abstract

[eng] Development of a Health Utilities Index for the French Population. The Health Utilities Index is a generic multi-attribute preference-based system for assessing health-related quality of life. It has been used in cost-effectiveness evaluations in North America and in international multicentre studies but was not available in France. After cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the HUI3 classification for the French population, the purpose of this survey was to derive population weights for the French instrument. Face-to-face interviews were conducted on a representative sample (n= 365) of the French population. Visual Analogue Scale and Standard Gamble techniques were used to measure preferences. Based on the multi-attribute utility theory, collected data provided utility functions for person-mean and median. [fre] Le Health Utilities Index (HUI) est constitué d’une classification d’états de santé et d’une fonction de pondération de ces états. La classification permet de décrire la santé d’un individu ou d’une population à un moment donné et au cours du temps. Les états de santé étant multidimensionnels, la théorie de l’utilité multiattribut de Keeney et Raiffa, prolongement de la théorie de l’utilité espérée, permet de construire la fonction de pondération supposant que chaque dimension du HUI est un attribut de la fonction d’utilité. Après avoir rappelé les fondements théoriques retenus pour modéliser la fonction d’utilité multiattribut associée au HUI3, l’enquête de révélation des préférences effectuée en population française et la construction des fonctions d’utilité moyenne et médiane sont présentées et discutées.

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine Le Galès & Catherine Buron & Nathalie Costet & Sophia Rosman & Gérard Slama, 2001. "Développement d'un index d'états de santé pondéré par les utilités en population française : le Health Utilities Index," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 150(4), pages 71-87.
    • Handle: RePEc:prs:ecoprv:ecop_0249-4744_2001_num_150_4_6350
    DOI: 10.3406/ecop.2001.6350
    Note: DOI:10.3406/ecop.2001.6350
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3406/ecop.2001.6350
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.persee.fr/doc/ecop_0249-4744_2001_num_150_4_6350
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3406/ecop.2001.6350?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Brazier & Mark Deverill, 1999. "A checklist for judging preference‐based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 41-51, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michaël Schwarzinger & Jean‐Louis Lanoë & Erik Nord & Isabelle Durand‐Zaleski, 2004. "Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade‐off responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 171-181, February.
    2. David G. T. Whitehurst & Stirling Bryan & Martyn Lewis, 2011. "Systematic Review and Empirical Comparison of Contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D Group Mean Scores," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 34-44, November.
    3. Aureliano Paolo Finch & John Brazier & Clara Mukuria, 2021. "Selecting Bolt-on Dimensions for the EQ-5D: Testing the Impact of Hearing, Sleep, Cognition, Energy, and Relationships on Preferences Using Pairwise Choices," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(1), pages 89-99, January.
    4. Tsuchiya, Aki & Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer, 2006. "Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 334-346, March.
    5. San Miguel, Fernando & Ryan, Mandy & Scott, Anthony, 2002. "Are preferences stable? The case of health care," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 1-14, May.
    6. Marra, Carlo A. & Woolcott, John C. & Kopec, Jacek A. & Shojania, Kamran & Offer, Robert & Brazier, John E. & Esdaile, John M. & Anis, Aslam 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, Elsevier, vol. 60(7), pages 1571-1582, April.
    7. Norah L. Crossnohere & Ryan Fischer & Andrew Lloyd & Lisa A. Prosser & John F. P. Bridges, 2021. "Assessing the Appropriateness of the EQ-5D for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy: A Patient-Centered Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(2), pages 209-221, February.
    8. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619, June.
    9. Adedokun Oluwafemi Ojelabi & Afolabi Elijah Bamgboye & Jonathan Ling, 2019. "Preference-based measure of health-related quality of life and its determinants in sickle cell disease in Nigeria," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-16, November.
    10. Hareth Al‐Janabi & Terry N. Flynn & Tim J. Peters & Stirling Bryan & Joanna Coast, 2015. "Test–Retest Reliability of Capability Measurement in the UK General Population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(5), pages 625-630, May.
    11. Karen Gerard & Katharine Johnston & Jackie Brown, 1999. "The role of a pre‐scored multi‐attribute health classification measure in validating condition‐specific health state descriptions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(8), pages 685-699, December.
    12. D. Stratmann‐Schoene & T. Kuehn & R. Kreienberg & R. Leidl, 2006. "A preference‐based index for the SF‐12," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 553-564, June.
    13. Stavros Petrou & Christine Hockley, 2005. "An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(11), pages 1169-1189, November.
    14. Jack Dowie, 2002. "Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition‐specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 1-8, January.
    15. Joseph Kwon & Sarah Smith & Rakhee Raghunandan & Martin Howell & Elisabeth Huynh & Sungwook Kim & Thomas Bentley & Nia Roberts & Emily Lancsar & Kirsten Howard & Germaine Wong & Jonathan Craig & Stavr, 2023. "Systematic Review of the Psychometric Performance of Generic Childhood Multi-attribute Utility Instruments," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 559-584, July.
    16. Stavros Petrou & Joseph Kwon & Jason Madan, 2018. "A Practical Guide to Conducting a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Health State Utility Values," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(9), pages 1043-1061, September.
    17. Simon J Palfreyman & Angela M Tod & John E Brazier & Jonathan A Michaels, 2010. "A systematic review of health‐related quality of life instruments used for people with venous ulcers: an assessment of their suitability and psychometric properties," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(19‐20), pages 2673-2703, October.
    18. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.
    19. Rodríguez-Míguez, E. & Abellán-Perpiñán, J.M. & Alvarez, X.C. & González, X.M. & Sampayo, A.R., 2016. "The DEP-6D, a new preference-based measure to assess health states of dependency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 210-219.
    20. Xiao-Ying Jiang & Hong-Mei Wang & Todd C Edwards & Ying-Ping Chen & Yi-Ran Lv & Donald L Patrick, 2014. "Measurement Properties of the Chinese Version of the Youth Quality of Life Instrument–Weight Module (YQOL-W)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-10, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:prs:ecoprv:ecop_0249-4744_2001_num_150_4_6350. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Equipe PERSEE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.persee.fr/collection/ecop .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.