Cited by 751Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeMedical Practices and RehabilitationEconomic and Environmental Valuation

The Health Utilities Index (HUI®) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies

Open access
Furlong, William J, Feeny, David H, Torrance, George W, Barr, Ronald D·2001·Annals of Medicine

Abstract

This paper reviews the Health Utilities Index (HUI) systems as means to describe health status and obtain utility scores reflecting health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The HUI Mark 2 (HUI2) and Mark 3 (HUI3) classification and scoring systems are described. The methods used to estimate multiattribute utility functions for HUI2 and HUI3 are reviewed. The use of HUI in clinical studies for a wide variety of conditions in a large number of countries is illustrated. HUI provides a comprehensive description of the health status of subjects in clinical studies. HUI has been shown to be a reliable, responsive and valid measure in a wide variety of clinical studies. Utility scores provide an overall assessment of the HRQoL of patients. Utility scores are also useful in cost-utility analyses and related studies. General population norm data are available. The widespread use of HUI facilitates the interpretation of results and permits comparisons. HUI is a useful tool for assessing health status and HRQoL in clinical studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/07853890109002092

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Health Utilities Index (HUI) has well-established validity and reliability in many clinical contexts (test-retest reliability of 0.767 intraclass correlation coefficient).

    “The Health Utilities Index (HUI) provides indicators of multiple attributes of health status for use in economic evaluations of healthcare programmes. It has well-established validity and reliability in many clinical contexts (test–retest reliability of 0.767 intraclass correlation coefficient).77 78”

    From Coached, Coordinated, Enhanced Neonatal Transition (CCENT): Protocol for a multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled trial of transition-to-home support for parents of high-risk infants (2021) · cites this paper as [77]

    The Introduction (page not available) describes HUI as valid and reliable and says it has been used across numerous clinical areas. Example Study 1 also reports a study concluding that HUI2 and HUI3 were reliable and valid. Our copy does not report a test–retest intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.767; the ICCs found concern other measurements. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 79 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Feeny DH, Torrance GW, Furlong WJ. Health Utilities Index. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd edn. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Press; 1996: 85-95.
  2. Houle C, Berthelot, JM. A head-to-head comparison of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 and the EQ-5D for the population living in private households in Canada. Quality of Life Newsletter 2000; 24: 5-6.
  3. Le Galis C, Buron C, Costet N, Rosman S, Slama G. Development of a health status index weighted by utilities from the population of France: the Health Utilities Index (in French). Economie et PrPvision (in press).
  4. Furlong WJ. Variability of utility scores for health states among general population groups (MSc Thesis). Hamilton, Canada: McMaster University; 1996.
  5. Barr RD, Simpson T, Whitton A, Rush B, Furlong W, Feeny DH. Health-related quality of life in survivors of tumours of the central nervous system in childhood -a preference-based approach to measurement in a cross-sectional study. Eur ] Cancer 1999; 35: 248-55.
  6. www.annmed.org 0 The Finnish Medical Society Duodecim, Ann Med 2001; 33: 375-384
  7. Wang Q, Chen G. The health status of the Singaporean population as measured by the Health Utilities Index Mark 111 system. Singapore Med J 1999; 40: 389-96.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Furlong, W. J., Feeny, D. H., Torrance, G. W., & Barr, R. D.
Affiliations
McMaster University (CA)
Corresponding author
Furlong, William J
Venue
Annals of Medicine
Published
2001-01
Volume
33
Issue
5
Pages
375-384
ISSN
  • 0785-3890 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2060
OpenAlex
W2015583354
Cited by
751
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 40
FWCI
8.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • MacSphere (McMaster University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
Keywords
Health Utilities Index, Health Utilities Index Mark 3, health-related quality of life, health status measurement, utility scores, multi-attribute utility function, cost-utility analysis, reference values, clinical trials
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Cross-Sectional Studies, Health Status, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Quality of Life, Reference Standards, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review