Skip to main content
Log in

Relationship between health status and utility measures in older claudicants

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between health status and health utility measures in 34 older claudicants and to determine which attributes of health status were significant predictors of health state valuation/preference. The MOS SF-36 was used to assess health status and the rating scale and multiattribute Health Utility Index (HUI) were used to assess utility scores. With regard to health status, the bodily pain and physical functioning subscales contributed the most to reductions in quality of life (QoL) with mean subscale scores substantially lower than reported population norms. Patients rated their health status approximately one-third below a state of perfect health on both utility measures. Moderate correlations were observed between the MOS SF-36 subscale scores and the HUI and rating scale scores. In multivariable regression models, physical functioning and mental health were the best predictors of HUI scores, whereas general health and vitality were the best predictors of rating scale scores. Approximately 50% of the variance in utility scores was explained by these attributes. This study provides further documentation that bodily pain and reductions in physical function contribute to reductions in QoL in older patients with intermittent claudication. Other attributes of health status, however, notably psychological distress, were predictive of patients' preference for health states. Recognized constructs of physical and mental health explained the substantial variation in the utility/preference assessment in this population. Furthermore, these data are consistent with those reported in the Dutch Iliac Stent Trial.

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. Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 593–600.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Feeny DH. Torrance GW, Furlong WJ. Health Utilities Index. In: Spilker B, ed. Quaity of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, 2nd edn, Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bennett KJ, Torrance GW. Measuring health state preferences and utilities: rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble techniques. In: Spilker B, ed. Quaity of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, 2nd edn, Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996: 253–265.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kaplan RM, Anderson JP. A general health policy model: update and applications. Health Serv Res 1988; 23: 203–235.

    Google Scholar 

  5. EurolQol Group. EurolQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Drummond MF, Stoddard GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986; 4: 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Revicki DA, Kaplan RM. Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 477–487.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bosch JL, Hunink MG. The relationship between descriptive and valuation quality-of-life measures in patients with intermittent claudication. Med Decision Making 1996; 16: 217–225.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ware JE. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: John E. Ware Jr, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  11. McDermott MM, Feinglass J, Slavensky R, Pearce WH. The ankle-brachial index as a predictor of survival in patients with peripheral vascular disease. J Gen Intern Med 1994; 9: 445–449.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Barietta G, Perna S, Sabba C, Catalano A, O'Boyle C, Brevetti G. Quality of life in patients with intermittent claudication: relationship with laboratory exercise performance. Vascular Med 1996; 1: 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gold MR, Patrick DL, Torrance GW et al. Identifying and valuing outcomes. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996: 82–123.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fryback DG, Lawrence WF, Martin PA, Klein R, Klein BE. Predicting quality of well-being scores from the SF-36: results from the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study. Med Decision Making 1997; 17: 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bartman, B.A., Rosen, M.J., Bradham, D.D. et al. Relationship between health status and utility measures in older claudicants. Qual Life Res 7, 67–73 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008888906160

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008888906160

Navigation