Methods: The search was conducted across three databases: PubMed, CINAHL and Emerald using four key concepts: 'health', 'index', 'context', 'develop', which was supplemented with Google searching and reference scanning. A researcher screened the titles, abstracts and subsequently full texts and confirmed the findings with the research team at each stage. Data charting was performed according to the included publications and identified indices. The collation was performed by describing the indices and made observation on its development method using a priori framework consist of four processes: underpinning theory, model or framework; data selection and processing; formation of index; testing of index.
Results: Twenty-six publications describing population health indices were included, and 27 indices were identified. These indices covered the following health topics: overall health outcomes (n = 15), outcomes for specific health topics (n = 4), diseases outcome (n = 6), assist health resource allocation for priority minority subgroup or geographic area (n = 4), quality of health or health care (n = 2). Twenty-one indices measure health for general populations while six measure defined subpopulations. Fourteen of the indices reported at least one of the development processes according to the a priori framework: underpinning theory, model or framework (n = 7); data selection and processing (n = 8); formation of index (n = 12); testing of index (n = 9).
Conclusions: Few population health indices measure specific health topics or health of specific sub-population. There is also a lack of usage of theories, models or framework in developing these indices. Efforts to develop a guideline is proposed on how population health indices can be developed systematically and rigorously to ensure validity and comprehensive assessment of the indices.
METHODS: A computer-based SG (CBSG) tool was developed using Microsoft® PowerPoint 2007 to value asthma-specific health states in Malaysia. Eight hypothetical health states were considered, including two anchor states (healthy and dead), three chronic (C) states and three temporary (T) states (each numbered 1 through 3, with increasing severity) in addition to the subject's current health state. Twenty adult asthma patients completed the CBSG tool in addition to paper-based Asthma Control Test, three health status measures (EQ-5D, EQ-VAS, and Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (MiniAQLQ)), and VAS utility assessment tool. Patients and interviewers rated the difficulty of the VAS and CBSG tools. Correlations between current health state values derived from the various measures were determined.
RESULTS: The SG and the VAS received similar difficulty ratings. 17 patients completed the CBSG tool within 30 minutes. The mean utilities determined by the CBSG tool for the T1-T3 asthma health states met the expected logical order of 1>2>3, but those for the C1-C3 states did not. Correlation between current health state values derived from the CBSG tool and other measurement tools was poor.
CONCLUSION: The CBSG tool developed for measuring utilities of asthma health states showed acceptable feasibility and overall validity.