Literature DB >> 10178665

The use of QALY and non-QALY measures of health-related quality of life. Assessing the state of the art.

M Deverill1, J Brazier, C Green, A Booth.   

Abstract

There are now a large number of instruments available for assessing health-related quality of life, many of which are used within economic evaluations. When considering the use of quality-of-life instruments, meaningful questions need to be asked to determine whether an instrument has been used judiciously. Such questions should consider whether the instrument is valid and suitable for the particular study question, whether the instrument is compatible with the economic evaluation framework used, and subsequently whether the conclusions presented in the study are legitimate. In order to illustrate the value of these questions we have applied them to a number of economic evaluations. The studies used were identified via a systematic review of the health economics literature. In our assessment of a sample of published material, we found that reporting is frequently unhelpful and that the inappropriate use of instruments and techniques casts doubt on the conclusions of economic evaluations. Furthermore, our systematic review of the health economics literature has shown that the general format of reported economic evaluations falls short of the commonly accepted ideal. We examined the health economics literature for 1995 and only identified a handful of studies which satisfied the economic evaluation criteria as accepted by most economists. It is hoped that raising awareness of these issues will urge evaluators, referees and publishers not to lose sight of the needs of the decision-maker when considering the detail which should be present in a reported evaluation.

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 10178665     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-199813040-00004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  21 in total

1.  Problems of using modelling in the economic evaluation of health care.

Authors:  T A Sheldon
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1996 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Cost utility of chemotherapy and best supportive care in non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  W Kennedy; D Reinharz; G Tessier; A P Contandriopoulos; I Trabut; F Champagne; J Ayoub
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Benefit-cost analysis of community residential versus institutional services for adults with severe mental retardation and challenging behaviors.

Authors:  C A Knobbe; S P Carey; L Rhodes; R H Horner
Journal:  Am J Ment Retard       Date:  1995-03

4.  Cost-utility analysis of group living in dementia care.

Authors:  A Wimo; B Mattson; I Krakau; T Eriksson; A Nelvig; G Karlsson
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 2.188

5.  Comparison of cost-effectiveness and utility of exercise ECG, single photon emission computed tomography, positron emission tomography, and coronary angiography for diagnosis of coronary artery disease.

Authors:  R E Patterson; R L Eisner; S F Horowitz
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1995-01-01       Impact factor: 29.690

6.  The use of "quality-adjusted life years" (QALYs) to evaluate treatment in intensive care.

Authors:  R K Kerridge; P P Glasziou; K M Hillman
Journal:  Anaesth Intensive Care       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 1.669

7.  Cost effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy with tissue plasminogen activator as compared with streptokinase for acute myocardial infarction.

Authors:  D B Mark; M A Hlatky; R M Califf; C D Naylor; K L Lee; P W Armstrong; G Barbash; H White; M L Simoons; C L Nelson
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1995-05-25       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Home oxygen therapy. A comparison of 2- vs 6-month patient reevaluation.

Authors:  J J Cottrell; D Openbrier; J R Lave; C Paul; J L Garland
Journal:  Chest       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 9.410

9.  Surgery for limb threatening ischaemia: a reappraisal of the costs and benefits.

Authors:  B F Johnson; L Evans; R Drury; D Datta; W Morris-Jones; J D Beard
Journal:  Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 7.069

10.  Self-managed versus agency-provided personal assistance care for individuals with high level tetraplegia.

Authors:  J M Prince; M S Manley; G G Whiteneck
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 3.966

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Testing the validity of cost-effectiveness models.

Authors:  C McCabe; S Dixon
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Towards more consistent use of generic quality-of-life instruments.

Authors:  Mattias Neyt
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Methodological reviews of economic evaluations in health care: what do they target?

Authors:  Maria-Florencia Hutter; Roberto Rodríguez-Ibeas; Fernando Antonanzas
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2013-08-24

Review 4.  Economic and health-related quality of life considerations of new therapies in Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  L M Rubenstein; A DeLeo; E A Chrischilles
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Comparison of health-related quality of life measures for chronic renal failure: quality of well-being scale, short-form-6D, and the kidney disease quality of life instrument.

Authors:  Karen L Saban; Kevin T Stroupe; Fred B Bryant; Domenic J Reda; Margaret M Browning; Denise M Hynes
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-09-13       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 6.  Quality of life in children and adolescents with cystic fibrosis: implications for optimizing treatments and clinical trial design.

Authors:  Janice Abbott; Louise Gee
Journal:  Paediatr Drugs       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 3.022

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.