Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Utility Scores for Chronic Conditions in a Community-Dwelling Population

  • Original Research Article
  • Utility Scores for Chronic Conditions
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine utility scores for various chronic conditions.

Design and setting: This study is a descriptive analysis. Health Utilities Index (HUI) scores for 20 chronic conditions were examined from the National Population Health Survey (NPHS) from 1994 to 1995.

Patients and participants: 17 626 individuals were surveyed (54.3% women). Chronic conditions included: acne (requiring medication), Alzheimer’s disease, arthritis/rheumatism, asthma, back problems excluding arthritis, chronic bronchitis or emphysema, cancer, cataracts, diabetes, epilepsy, food allergies, glaucoma, heart disease, high blood pressure, migraine headaches, other allergies, sinusitis, stroke, stomach/intestinal ulcers and urinary incontinence.

Interventions: Health Utilities Index-Mark III (HUI-Mark III) scores for patients with and without a NPHS-defined chronic condition were collected. Utility scores were examined according to age, gender and comorbidity.

Main outcome measures and results: 42.6% of individuals reported having no NPHS-defined chronic condition. The most commonly reported health conditions were allergies other than food (17.6%) and rheumatism/arthritis (16.5%). The mean HUI-Mark III scores for patients without a health state was 0.933 ± 0.079. Individuals with Alzheimer’s disease (0.580 ± 0.263), stroke (0.676 ± 0.230) and urinary incontinence (0.698 ± 0.230) had the lowest overall HUI-Mark III scores. Utility scores decreased as age and as the number of comorbid conditions increased.

Conclusions: This study provides health economists, researchers and policymakers with a reference for health utilities of various chronic conditions, different age groups, gender and comorbidities.

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. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada. 2nd ed. Toronto (ON): Ministry of Health, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  2. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. Multi-attribute preference functions: health utilities index. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7(6): 503–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Rizzo JA, Pashko S, Friedkin R, et al. Linking the health utilities index to National Medical Expenditure Survey Data. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (5 Pt 1): 531–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Statistics Canada. National Population Health Survey: 1994-95. Ottawa (ON): Statistics Canada, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  6. Robinson R. Cost-utility analysis. BMJ 1993; 307: 859–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Boyle M, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. Reliability of the Health Utilites Index-Mark III used in the 1991 cycle 6 Canadian General Survey Health Questionnaire. Qual Life 1995; 4: 249–57

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Fergusson BM, Keown PA. An introduction to utility measurement in health care. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995; 16 (4): 240–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Drummond M, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programs. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sackett DL, Torrance G. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chronic Dis 1978; 31 (11): 697–704

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Roberge R, Berthelot J, Wolfson M. The Health Utilities Index: measuring differences in Ontario by socioeconomic status. Health Rep 1995; 7 (2): 25–32

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R, et al. The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making 1993; 13: 89–102

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Gold M, Granks P, Erickson P. Assessing the health of the nation: the predictive validity of a preference-based measure and self-rated health. Med Care 1996; 34 (2): 163–77

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. HOPE Research Centre, Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Room E2 40, Toronto, Ontario, M4N 3M5, Canada

    Nicole Mittmann & Nancy Risebrough

  2. Department of Pharmacology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Nicole Mittmann & Kostas Trakas

  3. Kunin-Lunenfeld Applied Research Unit, Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care and Division of Geriatric Medicine and Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Barbara A. Liu

Authors
  1. Nicole Mittmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kostas Trakas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nancy Risebrough
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Barbara A. Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole Mittmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mittmann, N., Trakas, K., Risebrough, N. et al. Utility Scores for Chronic Conditions in a Community-Dwelling Population. Pharmacoeconomics 15, 369–376 (1999). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199915040-00004

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199915040-00004

Keywords

Search

Navigation