IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v27y2007i1p61-70.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring Health Preferences for Health Utilities Index Mark 3 Health States: A Study of Feasibility and Preference Differences among Ethnic Groups in Singapore

Author

Listed:
  • Nan Luo

    (Centre for Health Services Research, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore)

  • Qinan Wang

    (Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, aqnwang@ntu.edu.sg)

  • David Feeny

    (Institute of Health Economics & University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada, Kaiser Permanente Northwest Center for Health Research, Portland, OR, Health Utilities Incorporated, Dundas, ON, Canada)

  • Geraldine Chen

    (Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore)

  • Shu-Chuen Li

    (Department of Pharmacy and Experimental Pharmacology, School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Newcastle, Australia)

  • Julian Thumboo

    (Department of Rheumatology and Immunology, Singapore General Hospital, Department of Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore)

Abstract

Background. Little is known about the health preferences of Southeast Asians. The authors therefore investigated the feasibility of measuring health preferences of Chinese, Malays, and Indians in Singapore and compared their preference scores. Methods. A stratified random sample of the Singaporean general population was interviewed to measure preferences for a set of health states defined by the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) using both the rating scale (RS) and the standard gamble (SG) methods. Feasibility of preference measurement was assessed using ratings of measurement tasks, task completion rates, and ranking of preference scores. Differences in preference scores across Chinese, Malays, and Indians were examined using analysis of variance models. Results. Among 245 interviewed respondents (Chinese: 110, Malays: 73, Indians: 62), 97.1% and 95.1% successfully completed all the RS and SG measurement tasks, respectively; 70.1% and 75.3% judged the RS and SG tasks as “easy†or “very easy,†respectively. Interviewers rated 69.4% and 75.0% of these respondents as having “full comprehension†for the RS and SG tasks, respectively; “full concentration†was observed in 84.1% and 84.0% of these respondents for the RS and SG tasks, respectively. There were no significant differences in mean preference scores across Chinese, Malays, and Indians, with and without adjustment for effects of confounding variables. Conclusions. RS and SG are feasible methods for measuring health preferences for Asians in Singapore; it appears that Chinese, Malays, and Indians in Singapore have similar preferences for HUI3 health states.

Suggested Citation

  • Nan Luo & Qinan Wang & David Feeny & Geraldine Chen & Shu-Chuen Li & Julian Thumboo, 2007. "Measuring Health Preferences for Health Utilities Index Mark 3 Health States: A Study of Feasibility and Preference Differences among Ethnic Groups in Singapore," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(1), pages 61-70, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:1:p:61-70
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06297103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X06297103
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X06297103?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. Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
    2. W Furlong & D Feeny & G Torrance & C Goldsmith & S DePauw & Z Zhu & M Denton & M Boyle, 1998. "Multiplicative Multi-Attribute Utility Function for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) System: A Technical Report," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 1998-11, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    3. Patrick, D.L. & Sittampalam, Y. & Somerville, S.M. & Carter, W.B. & Bergner, M., 1985. "A cross-cultural comparison of health status values," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 75(12), pages 1402-1407.
    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. 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.
    2. Mihir Gandhi & Marcus Ang & Kelvin Teo & Chee Wai Wong & Yvonne Chung-Hsi Wei & Rachel Lee-Yin Tan & Mathieu F. Janssen & Nan Luo, 2020. "A vision ‘bolt-on’ increases the responsiveness of EQ-5D: preliminary evidence from a study of cataract surgery," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(4), pages 501-511, June.
    3. Carmen Herrero Blanco & Juan D. Moreno Ternero, 2002. "Economic Evaluation Of Newborn Hearing Screening Procedures," Working Papers. Serie AD 2002-06, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    4. Samer A. Kharroubi & Yara Beyh & Marwa Diab El Harake & Dalia Dawoud & Donna Rowen & John Brazier, 2020. "Examining the Feasibility and Acceptability of Valuing the Arabic Version of SF-6D in a Lebanese Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-15, February.
    5. Nick Bansback & Huiying Sun & Daphne P. Guh & Xin Li & Bohdan Nosyk & Susan Griffin & Paul G. Barnett & Aslam H. Anis, 2008. "Impact of the recall period on measuring health utilities for acute events," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(12), pages 1413-1419.
    6. Clarke, Philip & Erreygers, Guido, 2020. "Defining and measuring health poverty," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    7. Francesca Cornaglia & Naomi E. Feldman & Andrew Leigh, 2014. "Crime and Mental Well-Being," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 49(1), pages 110-140.
    8. Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    9. Stavros Petrou & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Helen Dakin & Louise Longworth & Mark Oppe & Robert Froud & Alastair Gray, 2015. "Preferred Reporting Items for Studies Mapping onto Preference-Based Outcome Measures: The MAPS Statement," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(6), pages 1-8, August.
    10. Anirban Basu & William Dale & Arthur Elstein & David Meltzer, 2009. "A linear index for predicting joint health‐states utilities from single health‐states utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 403-419, April.
    11. McCabe, Christopher & Brazier, John & Gilks, Peter & Tsuchiya, Aki & Roberts, Jennifer & O'Hagan, Anthony & Stevens, Katherine, 2006. "Using rank data to estimate health state utility models," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 418-431, May.
    12. Thomas Reinhold & Claudia Witt & Susanne Jena & Benno Brinkhaus & Stefan Willich, 2008. "Quality of life and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture treatment in patients with osteoarthritis pain," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(3), pages 209-219, August.
    13. Kontodimopoulos, Nick & Niakas, Dimitris, 2008. "An estimate of lifelong costs and QALYs in renal replacement therapy based on patients' life expectancy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 85-96, April.
    14. Allanson, Paul, 2017. "Monitoring income-related health differences between regions in Great Britain: A new measure for ordinal health data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 72-80.
    15. Andrew M. Jones & Audrey Laporte & Nigel Rice & Eugenio Zucchelli, 2019. "Dynamic panel data estimation of an integrated Grossman and Becker–Murphy model of health and addiction," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 703-733, February.
    16. Makai, Peter & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Koopmanschap, Marc A. & Stolk, Elly A. & Nieboer, Anna P., 2014. "Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 83-93.
    17. Stevens, K, 2010. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility Index 9D (CHU9D)," MPRA Paper 29938, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Brazier, JE & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2008. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) from non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," MPRA Paper 29808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Johanna L. Bosch & Elkan F. Halpern & G. Scott Gazelle, 2002. "Comparison of Preference-Based Utilities of the Short-Form 36 Health Survey and Health Utilities Index before and after Treatment of Patients with Intermittent Claudication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(5), pages 403-409, October.
    20. Christopher McCabe & Katherine Stevens & Jennifer Roberts & John Brazier, 2005. "Health state values for the HUI 2 descriptive system: results from a UK survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 231-244, March.

    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:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:1:p:61-70. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.