White Rose University Consortium logo
University of Leeds logo University of Sheffield logo York University logo

Measuring population health: a comparison of three generic health status measures

Macran, S., Weatherly, H. and Kind, P. (2003) Measuring population health: a comparison of three generic health status measures. Medical Care, 41 (2). pp. 218-231. ISSN 0025-7079

Full text not available from this repository.



The relative performance of three widely used generic health status measures (EQ-5D, a modified HUI3 [mHUI3], and SF-12) was compared within a general population sample.


Data were taken from a cohort of persons identified from the patient list of a large general practice in York, UK. Two-way comparisons were made between EQ-5D and mHUI3 and EQ-5D and SF-12. The measures were assessed in terms of their practical viability, coverage, and discrimination. Practical viability was evaluated in terms of the extent of missing responses and the proportion indicating difficulty with a measure. Coverage examined the range of responses across the items in the measures. Discrimination examined the capacity of the measures to discriminate between persons according to their self-reported morbidity and socioeconomic status.


One thousand one hundred twenty-six persons completed a postal questionnaire containing EQ-5D and either mHUI3 (n = 593) or SF-12 (n = 533). Missing responses were low across all three instruments. SF-12 showed a broad distribution of responses across its items however, responses on the mHUI3 hearing, speech and dexterity dimensions and the EQ-5D self-care dimension were highly skewed, with few persons reporting problems. In terms of summary scores, mHUI3 identified more mild health states than EQ-5D. EQ-5D and mHUI3 showed slightly better discrimination than SF-12.


Despite the inherent differences in their descriptive systems and scoring functions, no one instrument performed better or worse than the other with respect to the criteria applied in this study. Some of the issues to be considered when choosing a population health measure are discussed.

Item Type: Article
Institution: The University of York
Academic Units: The University of York > York Health Economics Consortium (York)
Depositing User: York RAE Import
Date Deposited: 27 Mar 2009 09:56
Last Modified: 27 Mar 2009 09:56
Published Version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200302000-00004
Status: Published
Publisher: J B Lippincott Co
Identification Number: 10.1097/00005650-200302000-00004
URI: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/6994

Actions (repository staff only: login required)