Skip to main content
Log in

Multi-Attribute Health Status Classification Systems

Health Utilities Index

  • Review Article
  • Health Status Classification Systems
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

In this article, multi-attribute approaches to the assessment of health status are reviewed with a special focus on 2 recently developed systems, the Health Utilities Index (HUI) Mark II and Mark III systems. The Mark II system consists of 7 attributes: sensation, mobility, emotion, cognition, self-care, pain and fertility. The Mark III system contains 8 attributes: vision, hearing, speech. ambulation, dexterity, emotion, cognition and pain. Each attribute consists of multiple levels of functioning. A combination of levels across Ihe attributes constitutes a health state.

The HUI systems are deliberately focused on the fundamental core attributes of health status. and on the capacity of individuals to function with respect to these aHributes. Thus, the measure obtained constitutes a pure description of health status. uncontaminated by differential opportunity or preference.

Multi-attribute systems provide a compact but comprehensive framework for describing health status for use in population health and programme evaluation studies. An important advantage of such systems is their ability 10 simultaneously provide detail on an allribute-by-attribute basis and to capture combinations of deficits among attributes. An additional advantage is their compatibility with multi-attribute preference functions. which provide a method for computing a summary health-related quality-of-life score for each health state

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

Access this article

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. Cadman D, Goldsmith C, Torrance GW, et al. Development of a health status index for Ontario children. Final report to the Ontario Ministry of Health on reseach grant DM648(00633). Hamilton, Ont.: McMaster University, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cadman D, Goldsmith C, Bashim P. Values, preferences, and decisions in the care of children with developmental disabilities. Dev Behav Pediatr 1984; 5: 60–4

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Cadman D, Goldsmith C. Construction of social value or utility–based health indices: the usefulness of factorial experimental design plans. J Chronic Dis 1986; 39: 643–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Rosenbaum P, Cadman D, Kirpalani H. Pediatrics: assessing quality of life In: Spilker B. editor. Quality of life assessmentin Clinical trials. New York: Raven Press, 1990: 205–15

    Google Scholar 

  5. Feeny DH, Furlong W, Barr RD. et al. A comprehensive multi–attribute system for classifying the health status of survivors of childhood cancer. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10: 923–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Torrance GW, Boyle MH, Horwood SP. Application of multiattribute utility theory to measure social preferences forhealth states. Operations Res 1982; 30: 1043–69

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health–related quality of life. Ann intern Med 1993; 118: 622–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Torrance G, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. Multi–attribute preference functions: health utilities index. PharmacoEconomics 1995; 7 (6): 503–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kirshner B, Guyatt G. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis 1985; 38: 27–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Patrick DL, Erickson P. Health status and health policy: quality of life in health care evaluation and resource allocation. NewYork: Oxford University Pres, 1993

  11. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36–item short from health survey (SF–36). Med Care 1992; 30: 473–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. WHO. Measuring quality of life: the development of World Health Organization Quality of Life instrument (WHOQOL). Geneva: WHO. 1992

  13. Bergner M, Bobbit RA, Carter WB, et al. The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health Status measure. Med Care 1981; 19: 787–805

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ware JE, Brook RH, Davies AR, et al. Choosing meaSureS of health status for individuals in general populations. Am J Public Health 1981; 71: 620–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fanshel S, Bush JW. A health status index and its application to health services outcomes. Operations Res 1970; 18: 1021–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bush JW, Chen MM, Patrick DL. Social indicators of health based on function status and prognosis. Proceedings of the American Statistical Association,Social Statistics Section:1978 Aug: Montreal. Washington, DC: American Statistical Association. 1972: 71–80

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kaplan RM, Bush JW, Berry CC. The reliabilit, stability and generalizability of a health status index. Procceedings of the American Statistical Association, Social Statistics Seetion;1978. Washington, DC: American Statistical Association. 1978: 704–9

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kaplan RM, Bush JW. Health related quality of life measurement for evaluation research and policy analysis. Health Psychol 1982; 1: 61–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Patrick DL, Bush JW, Chen MM. Methods for measuring levels of well being for a health status index. Health Services Res 1973; 8: 228–45

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Patrick DL, Bush JW, Chen MM. Toward an operational definition of health. J Health Soc Behav 1973; 14: 6–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Patrick DL, Bergner M. Measurement of health status in the 1990s. Ann Rev Public Health 1990; 11: 165–83

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Rosser RM, Watts V. The sanative output of a health care system. Paper presented at the Conference of the Operations Research Society of America: 1971 May 5–7; Dallas

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rosser RM. Recent studies using a global approach to measuring illness. Med Care 1976; 14 Suppl. 5: 138–47

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kind P, Rosser R. The quantification of health. Eur J Soc Psycho1 1988; 18: 63–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rosser R, Watts V. The measurement of illness. J Operations Res Soc 1978; 29: 529–609

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Rosser R, Kind P. A scale of valuations of states of illness: is there a social consensus. Int J Epidemiol 1978; 7: 347–58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Rosser RM, WattS V. A clinical classification of disability and distress and its application to the awards made by the court in personal injury cases. New Law J 1975; 125: 323–6

    Google Scholar 

  28. Sintonen H. An approach to measuring and valuing health states. Soc Sci Med 1981; 15C: 55–65

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sintonen H, Pekurinen M. 15D: a 15 dimension measure of health. Presented at the Health Economists Study Group Meeting: 1988 Jul 18–22; Brunei University, London

    Google Scholar 

  30. Boyle MH, Torrance GW, Sinclair JC, et al. Economic evaluation of neonatal intensive care of very–low–birt–weight infants. N Engl J Med 1983; 308: 1330–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Boyle MH, Torrance GW. Developing multi–attribute health indexes. Med Care 1984; 22: 1045–57

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Feeny DH, Leiper A, Barr RD, et al. The comprehensive assessment of health status in survivors of childhood cancer: application to high–risk acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Br J Cancer 1993; 67: 1047–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G. et al. Design and pilot testing of comprehensive health–status measurement system for the Ontario Health Survey. Final report for the Ontario Ministry of Health. Hamilton, Ontario: Ontario Ministry of Health, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  34. Euroqol Group. Euroqol–a new facility for the measurement of health–related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199–208

    Google Scholar 

  35. Nord E. EuroQol: health–related quality of life measurement. Valuations of health states by the general public in Norway. Health Policy 1991; 18: 25–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Essink-Bot ML, Stouthard MEA, Bonsel GJ. Generalizability of valuations on health states collected wilh the Euroqoquestionnaire. Helth Econ 1993; 2: 237–46

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J. et al. A quantitative approach to perceived health Status: a validation study. J Epidemiol Community Health 1980; 34: 281–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. McKenna SP, Hunt S, Tennant A. The development ofa patient completed index of distress from the Nottingham health profile: a new measure for use in cost–utility studies. Br J Med Econ 1993; 6: 13–24

    Google Scholar 

  39. Nelson EC, Landgraf JM, Hays RD, et al. The functional status of patients. How Can it be measured in physicians’ offices? Med Care 1990; 28: 1111–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Ministry of Health, Ontario; Ontario Health Survey 1990. User’s guide, Vol. 1: documentation. Toronto: Ministry of Health, Ontario and Premiers Council on Health, Well–Being and Social Justice, 1993

  41. Berthelot J-M, Roberge R, Wolfson M. The calculation of health–adjusted life expectancy for a Canadian province using a multi–attribute utility function: a first attempt. In: Robine JM, Mathers CD, Bone MR, et al., editors. Calculation of health expectancies: harmonization. consensus achieved and future perspectives. Vol 226. Montrouge, France: Colloque INSERM fJohn Libbey Eurotext LId, 1993: 161–72

    Google Scholar 

  42. Strike C. Overview of 1991 General Social Survey on Health (GSS–6). Statistics Canada General Social Survey WorkingPaper No. I. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  43. Statistics Canada. Health status of Canadians: report of the 1991 General Social Survey. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 1994

  44. Cartwright A. The effect of obtaining information from different informants on a family morbidity inquiry. Appl statistics 1957; 6; 18–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Clarridge BR, Massagli MP. The use of female spouse proxies in common symptom reporting. Med Care 1989; 27: 352–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Magaziner J, Simonsick EM, Kashner TM, et al. Patient proxy response comparability on measures of patient health status and functional status. J Clin Epidemiol 1988; 41: 1065–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Rotham ML, Hedrick SC, Bulcroft KA, et al. The validity of proxy–generated scores as measures of patient health status. Med Care 1991; 29: 115–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Barr RD, Furlong W, Dawson S, et al. An assessment of global health status in survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in childhood. Am J Pediatrtr Hematol Oncol 1993; 15: 284–90

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Barr RD, Pai MKR, Weitzman J, et al. A multi–attribute approach to health status measurement and clinical management–illustrated by an application to brain tumors in childhood. Int J Oncol 1994; 4: 639–48

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Barr RD, Feeny DH, Furlong W, et al. Health–related quality of life in children with cancer. Int J Pediatr Hematol Oncol In press

  51. Billson A, Walker DA. Assessment of health Status in survivors of cancer. Arch Dis Child 1994; 70; 200–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Kanabar DJ, Attard-Montalto S, Saha V, et al. Quality of life in survivors of childhood cancer after megatherapy with autologous bone marrow rescue. Pediatr Hematol Oncol 1995; 12: 29–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Saigal S, Rosenbaum P, Stoskopf B, et al. Comprehensive assessment of the health status of extremely low birth eight children at eight years of age: comparison with a reference group. J Pediatr 1994; 125: 411–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Saigal S, Feeny D, Furlong W, et al. Comprehensive asscssment of the health–relaled quality of life of extremely low birth weight children and a reference group of children at eigh tyears of age. J Pedialr 1994: 125: 418–25

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Gortner S, Jaeger AA, Harr J, et al. Elders’ expected and realized benefits from cardiac surgery. Cardiaovasc Nurs 1994 Mar/Apr; 30(2): 91–94

    Google Scholar 

  56. Statistics Canada. The 1991 General Social Survey–Cycle 6: health–public uSe microdata file documentation and user’s guide. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 1992

  57. Boyle MH, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. Reliability of the Health Utililies Index–Mark III used in the 1991 Cycle 6 General Social Survey health questionnaire. Qual Life Res. In press, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  58. Feeny DH, Torrance GW, Goldsmith CH, et al. A multi–attribute approach to population health satutus. Proceedings of the 153rd Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association, 1993 Aug 8–12; San Francisco. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association. 1994: 161–6

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Boyle, M. et al. Multi-Attribute Health Status Classification Systems. Pharmacoeconomics 7, 490–502 (1995). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199507060-00004

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199507060-00004

Keywords

Navigation