discuss chronic illness in noteworthy characteristics

Note 28 Note 29 A detailed description of this survey can be found elsewhere. Note 27 Methods Survey designĪs with the prior study, Note 27 data from the two-year combined 20 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) were used. It extends prior work aimed at providing age- and sex-specific utility score norms for Canada, as well as for each province and territory. This study provides updated Canadian utility score norms for a broad range of chronic conditions. Furthermore, although both studies provide sex- and age-stratified results, Note 23 Note 24 finer granularity regarding the stratified analyses should be favoured because it may better highlight age- and sex-specific effects of diseases. Note 23 used the provisional conversion algorithm based on the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 weights, which is not necessarily equivalent to scores based on the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3). Note 25 Note 26 Additionally, norms provided by Mittmann et al. However, one concern with both sets of norms is that the values they provide may be outdated since they are based on responses to cycles 1 and 2 of the National Population Health Survey, which are over 20 years old. The utility score norms provided by these studies are of particular importance since they highlight the relative detrimental effect that each of these multiple conditions has on each other. Note 23 and Schultz and Kopec Note 24-have provided Canadian utility score norms for multiple chronic conditions ( i.e., 20 and 21 chronic conditions, respectively). Note 17 Many groups have provided Canadian utility score norms for a single chronic condition, Note 18 Note 19 Note 20 Note 21 Note 22 but few teams-notably Mittmann et al. In addition, utility score norms are critical inputs for Canadian economic evaluations and disease-specific HALE tables. In a Canadian context, utility score norms are useful since they serve as benchmark values against which subsets of the populations can be compared. One area of research common to the three uses of utility scores is the provision of population-wide utility score norms. Note 7 Note 8 Note 9 Note 10 Note 11 Finally, similar to their use in estimating HALE, utility scores can be used within the context of economic evaluations to quantify the incremental effectiveness of various interventions by way of quality-adjusted life years gained or lost. Second, utility scores can be combined with life expectancy tables to provide a health-adjusted life expectancy (HALE) that takes into account the expected duration of life, as well as the health states in which the members of a given population are expected to live. Note 6 that compared individuals with and without diabetes and/or cancer. Note 5 that compared individuals with and without multiple sclerosis, and studies by Bowker et al.

Notable Canadian examples include studies by Jones et al. First, they can be used as a simple composite measure to represent the excess burden associated with a particular condition when compared with individuals who do not suffer from that condition. Though always the same individual metric, utility scores have several applications within the HRQoL and economic literature. Health states considered worse than dead are assigned a negative value. Note 2 By convention, a utility score of 1.00 is assigned to a perfect health state, and a utility score of 0.00 is assigned to a dead state. Note 1 One common definition for HRQoL within the health economic literature is the “values assigned to different health states.” Those values are also known as utility scores. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has many definitions. For this article… Abstract Tables and figure

Discuss chronic illness in noteworthy characteristics