Outcome Measurement

Health state values for the HUI 2 descriptive system: results from a UK survey

  1. Christopher McCabe1,2,*,
  2. Katherine Stevens1,
  3. Jennifer Roberts1,
  4. John Brazier1

Article first published online: 2 SEP 2004

DOI: 10.1002/hec.925

Issue

Health Economics

Health Economics

Volume 14, Issue 3, pages 231–244, March 2005

Additional Information

How to Cite

McCabe, C., Stevens, K., Roberts, J. and Brazier, J. (2005), Health state values for the HUI 2 descriptive system: results from a UK survey. Health Econ., 14: 231–244. doi: 10.1002/hec.925

Author Information

  1. 1

    Sheffield Health Economics Group, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, UK

  2. 2

    Trent Institute for Health Services Research, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, UK

*Sheffield Health Economics Group, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 15 FEB 2005
  2. Article first published online: 2 SEP 2004
  3. Manuscript Accepted: 19 MAR 2004
  4. Manuscript Received: 3 APR 2003

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

Get PDF (163K)

Keywords:

  • economic evaluation;
  • health utilities index;
  • valuation algorithm

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a study to estimate a statistical health state valuation model for a revised version of the Health Utilities Index Mark 2, using Standard Gamble health state preference data. A sample of 51 health states were valued by a sample of the 198 members of the UK general population. Models are estimated for predicting health state valuations for all 8000 states defined by the revised HUI2. The recommended model produces logical and significant coefficients for all levels of all dimensions in the HUI2. These coefficients appear to be robust across model specifications. This model performs well in predicting the observed health state values within the valuation sample and for a separate validation sample of health states. However, there are concerns over large prediction errors for two health states in the valuation sample. These problems must be balanced against concerns over the validity of using the VAS based health state valuation data of the original HUI2 valuation model. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Get PDF (163K)