O'Brien Bernie J, Spath Marian, Blackhouse Gordon, Severens J L, Dorian Paul, Brazier John
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Canada.
Health Econ. 2003 Nov;12(11):975-81. doi: 10.1002/hec.789.
The SF-6D is a new health state classification and utility scoring system based on 6 dimensions ('6D') of the Short Form 36, and permits a "bridging" transformation between SF-36 responses and utilities. The Health Utilities Index, mark 3 (HUI3) is a valid and reliable multi-attribute health utility scale that is widely used. We assessed within-subject agreement between SF-6D utilities and those from HUI3.
Patients at increased risk of sudden cardiac death and participating in a randomized trial of implantable defibrillator therapy completed both instruments at baseline. Score distributions were inspected by scatterplot and histogram and mean score differences compared by paired t-test. Pearson correlation was computed between instrument scores and also between dimension scores within instruments. Between-instrument agreement was by intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC).
SF-6D and HUI3 forms were available from 246 patients. Mean scores for HUI3 and SF-6D were 0.61 (95% CI 0.60-0.63) and 0.58 (95% CI 0.54-0.62) respectively; a difference of 0.03 (p<0.03). Score intervals for HUI3 and SF-6D were (-0.21 to 1.0) and (0.30-0.95). Correlation between the instrument scores was 0.58 (95% CI 0.48-0.68) and agreement by ICC was 0.42 (95% CI 0.31-0.52). Correlations between dimensions of SF-6D were higher than for HUI3.
Our study casts doubt on the whether utilities and QALYs estimated via SF-6D are comparable with those from HUI3. Utility differences may be due to differences in underlying concepts of health being measured, or different measurement approaches, or both. No gold standard exists for utility measurement and the SF-6D is a valuable addition that permits SF-36 data to be transformed into utilities to estimate QALYs. The challenge is developing a better understanding as to why these classification-based utility instruments differ so markedly in their distributions and point estimates of derived utilities.
SF-6D是一种基于简短健康调查问卷(SF-36)的6个维度(“6D”)的新的健康状态分类和效用评分系统,它允许在SF-36回答和效用之间进行“桥梁式”转换。健康效用指数第3版(HUI3)是一种有效且可靠的多属性健康效用量表,被广泛使用。我们评估了SF-6D效用与HUI3效用之间的受试者内一致性。
参加植入式心脏除颤器治疗随机试验的心脏性猝死风险增加的患者在基线时完成了这两种量表。通过散点图和直方图检查分数分布,并通过配对t检验比较平均分数差异。计算了量表分数之间以及量表内维度分数之间的Pearson相关性。量表间的一致性通过组内相关系数(ICC)来评估。
246名患者提供了SF-6D和HUI3量表的数据。HUI3和SF-6D的平均分数分别为0.61(95%可信区间0.60 - 0.63)和0.58(95%可信区间0.54 - 0.62);差异为0.03(p<0.03)。HUI3和SF-6D的分数区间分别为(-0.21至1.0)和(0.30 - 0.95)。量表分数之间的相关性为0.58(95%可信区间0.48 - 0.68),ICC评估的一致性为0.42(95%可信区间0.31 - 0.52)。SF-6D各维度之间的相关性高于HUI3。
我们的研究对通过SF-6D估计的效用和质量调整生命年(QALYs)是否与HUI3的效用和QALYs具有可比性提出了质疑。效用差异可能是由于所测量的健康潜在概念不同、测量方法不同或两者兼而有之。效用测量不存在金标准,SF-6D是一项有价值的补充,它允许将SF-36数据转换成效用来估计QALYs。挑战在于更好地理解为什么这些基于分类的效用量表在其分布和导出效用的点估计上存在如此明显的差异。