Display options
Cite
Noto S, Uemura T. Japanese health utilities index mark 3 (HUI3): measurement properties in a community sample. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020;4(1):9doi: 10.1186/s41687-020-0175-5.
Noto, S., & Uemura, T. (2020). Japanese health utilities index mark 3 (HUI3): measurement properties in a community sample. Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 4(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-020-0175-5
Noto, Shinichi, and Uemura, Takamoto. "Japanese health utilities index mark 3 (HUI3): measurement properties in a community sample." Journal of patient-reported outcomes vol. 4,1 (2020): 9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-020-0175-5
Noto S, Uemura T. Japanese health utilities index mark 3 (HUI3): measurement properties in a community sample. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020 Jan 29;4(1):9. doi: 10.1186/s41687-020-0175-5. PMID: 31997027; PMCID: PMC6987883.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020 Jan 29;4(1):9. doi: 10.1186/s41687-020-0175-5.

Japanese health utilities index mark 3 (HUI3): measurement properties in a community sample.

Journal of patient-reported outcomes

Shinichi Noto, Takamoto Uemura

Affiliations

  1. Department of Rehabilitation, Niigata University of Health and Welfare, 1398 Shimami, Kita-ku, Niigata city, Niigata, Japan. [email protected].
  2. A Corporate Juridical Person, Life Science Promotion Association, Tokyo, Japan.
  3. School of Medicine, Udayana University, Bali, Indonesia.

PMID: 31997027 PMCID: PMC6987883 DOI: 10.1186/s41687-020-0175-5

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The McMaster Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) is a generic multi-attribute, preference-based system for assessing health-related quality of life (HRQOL). This study describes the translation procedures and cultural adaptation of the Japanese HUI3 and its measurement properties in a community sample.

METHODS: The Japanese HUI3 was developed through forward and back translations in cooperation with the developers of the HUI. Acceptability, comprehensibility of questionnaires, and test-retest reliability were assessed. In a community survey of a total of 3860 people (age: 41 ± 14.3, male/female: 2651/1209), the Canadian scoring function was used to calculate utility scores. Construct validity was assessed by examining the relationship between 20 personal characteristics and utility scores.

RESULTS: Linear regression estimates demonstrated a significant negative relation between HUI3 utility score and low education, male gender, poor interpersonal relationships, older age, and a higher number of chronic diseases. Single-attribute utility scores were associated with chronic conditions in the manner expected. The community samples were relatively healthy. More than 90% of the respondents were distributed in levels 1 and 2 in all attributes except cognition. Interpretability of utility score was assessed by estimation of the relationship between visual analogue scale (VAS) and the self-rated health and utility score. Independence of attributes was assessed. For only 3 of the 28 possible cross-comparisons among the 8 attributes were correlations coefficients greater than 0.25.

CONCLUSION: Translation and adaptation of the HUI3 questionnaire into Japanese was successful, but the sample size and selection bias limit the interpretation of our study conclusions.

Keywords: Health utilities index Mark3 (HUI3); Japan; Quality of life; Translation; Validity

References

  1. JAMA. 1996 Aug 14;276(6):453-9 - PubMed
  2. Cancer. 1997 Jul 15;80(2):258-65 - PubMed
  3. Med Decis Making. 2016 Feb;36(2):160-75 - PubMed
  4. Med Decis Making. 2015 Apr;35(3):276-91 - PubMed
  5. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 1998 Feb;28(2):134-41 - PubMed
  6. Health Serv Res. 1973 Fall;8(3):228-45 - PubMed
  7. Ann Intern Med. 1993 Apr 15;118(8):622-9 - PubMed
  8. Med Care. 1994 Oct;32(10):975-88 - PubMed
  9. Med Care. 2002 Feb;40(2):113-28 - PubMed
  10. Med Decis Making. 2010 Jan-Feb;30(1):5-15 - PubMed
  11. Med Care. 1996 Jul;34(7):702-22 - PubMed
  12. Eur J Health Econ. 2010 Apr;11(2):215-25 - PubMed
  13. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996 Mar;49(3):327-33 - PubMed
  14. CMAJ. 2018 Feb 12;190(6):E155-E161 - PubMed
  15. Ann Med. 2001 Jul;33(5):375-84 - PubMed
  16. Eur J Cancer. 1999 Feb;35(2):248-55 - PubMed
  17. Qual Life Res. 1995 Jun;4(3):249-57 - PubMed
  18. Health Econ. 2002 Jun;11(4):341-53 - PubMed
  19. J Pediatr. 1994 Sep;125(3):418-25 - PubMed
  20. Ann Med. 2001 Jul;33(5):344-9 - PubMed
  21. Med Care. 1986 Nov;24(11):973-80 - PubMed
  22. Med Care. 1996 Feb;34(2):163-77 - PubMed
  23. J Pediatr. 1994 Sep;125(3):411-7 - PubMed
  24. Health Care Manag Sci. 2002 Feb;5(1):41-51 - PubMed
  25. Popul Health Metr. 2010 Apr 29;8:8 - PubMed
  26. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995 Jun;7(6):503-20 - PubMed
  27. Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208 - PubMed
  28. Med Care. 2000 Mar;38(3):290-9 - PubMed
  29. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003 Oct 16;1:54 - PubMed
  30. Qual Life Res. 2016 Mar;25(3):707-19 - PubMed
  31. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Nov;51(11):1037-44 - PubMed

Publication Types