Open Access


Read more
image01

Online Manuscript Submission


Read more
image01

Submitted Manuscript Trail


Read more
image01

Online Payment


Read more
image01

Online Subscription


Read more
image01

Email Alert



Read more
image01

Original Research Article | OPEN ACCESS

Sensitivity and Responsiveness of Health Utility Indices (HUI2 and HUI3) Among Type 2 Diabetes Patients

Maxwell Ogochukwu Adibe , Cletus Nze Aguwa

Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research Team, Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacy Management, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria;

For correspondence:-  Maxwell Adibe   Email: Maxwell.adibe@gmail.com   Tel:+2348037781479

Received: 5 October 2012        Accepted: 22 June 2013        Published: 18 October 2013

Citation: Adibe MO, Aguwa CN. Sensitivity and Responsiveness of Health Utility Indices (HUI2 and HUI3) Among Type 2 Diabetes Patients. Trop J Pharm Res 2013; 12(5):835-842 doi: 10.4314/tjpr.v12i5.26

© 2013 The authors.
This is an Open Access article that uses a funding model which does not charge readers or their institutions for access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) and the Budapest Open Access Initiative (http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read), which permit unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited..

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the sensitivity and responsiveness of HUI2 and HUI3 among Type 2 diabetes patients.
Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in two purposively selected Nigerian tertiary hospitals. Six hundred and thirty-eight (638) adult patients were surveyed following their consent using the HUI2 and HUI3 (HUI23S4En.40Q) questionnaire. Patients’ clinical characteristics such as age, co-morbidity, severity of disease, and utilization of hospital resources were postulated a priori to be associated significantly with utility scores of HUI2 and HUI3. Student’s t-test and bivariate analyses were conducted to determine the diabetes-severity discriminatory ability of HUI2 and HUI3. The analyses were conducted with SPSS 14.0. A two-tailed significance level of 0.05 was used.
Results: Older patients had lower quality of life than younger patients. The overall health deficit of increasing age for HU13 was -0.2950 and that of overall HUI2 was -0.1553. The respondents without eye problem had higher quality of life than those with eye problem, in both HUI3 and HUI2 utility scores. Stroke was the most important patients’ characteristic that negatively affected HRQOL. Patients with duration of diabetes > 4 years had lower quality of life scores than their counterparts (≤ 4years).
Conclusion: Health Utility Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 were sufficiently sensitive and responsive to diabetes severity among Type 2 diabetes patients.

Keywords: Health utility index, HUI2, HUI3, Quality of life, Diabetes

Impact Factor
Thompson Reuters (ISI): 0.6 (2023)
H-5 index (Google Scholar): 49 (2023)

Article Tools

Share this article with



Article status: Free
Fulltext in PDF
Similar articles in Google
Similar article in this Journal:

Archives

2024; 23: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10
2023; 22: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2022; 21: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2021; 20: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2020; 19: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2019; 18: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2018; 17: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2017; 16: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2016; 15: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2015; 14: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2014; 13: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2013; 12: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2012; 11: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2011; 10: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2010; 9: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2009; 8: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2008; 7: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2007; 6: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2006; 5: 
1,   2
2005; 4: 
1,   2
2004; 3: 
1
2003; 2: 
1,   2
2002; 1: 
1,   2

News Updates