Literature DB >> 10520686

Whose preferences count?

P Dolan1.   

Abstract

An important consideration when choosing how to allocate health care resources is the improvements in patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) that alternative allocations generate. There is considerable debate about whose preferences should be used when measuring and valuing HRQoL. This debate has usually been in terms of whether the values of patients or the general public are the most appropriate. It is argued in this paper that this is a false dichotomy that does not facilitate understanding of empirical evidence. Nor, more importantly, does it address one of the most important issues in the debate about whose preferences count, that is, whether the fact that many people adapt to poor health states should be taken into account when ascribing values to those states. A conceptual framework is developed to facilitate a more fruitful discussion of the issues relating to the question of whose preferences should count.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10520686     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900416

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  29 in total

1.  Empirical validation of patient versus population preferences in calculating QALYs.

Authors:  Eva-Julia Weyler; Afschin Gandjour
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-04-21       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  The stability of utility scores: test-retest reliability and the interpretation of utility scores in elective total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  D Feeny; C M Blanchard; J L Mahon; R Bourne; C Rorabeck; L Stitt; S Webster-Bogaert
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Discrepancies between the Dermatology Life Quality Index and utility scores.

Authors:  Fanni Rencz; Petra Baji; László Gulácsi; Sarolta Kárpáti; Márta Péntek; Adrienn Katalin Poór; Valentin Brodszky
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-12-18       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  The effect of age, race and gender on preference scores for hypothetical health states.

Authors:  Eve Wittenberg; Elkan Halpern; Nomia Divi; Lisa A Prosser; Sally S Araki; Jane C Weeks
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 5.  How important is mode of administration in treatments for rheumatic diseases and related conditions?

Authors:  Nick Bansback; Logan Trenaman; Mark Harrison
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.592

6.  Do Chinese have similar health-state preferences? A comparison of mainland Chinese and Singaporean Chinese.

Authors:  P Wang; M H Li; G G Liu; J Thumboo; N Luo
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2014-09-27

7.  Differences in EQ-5D-3L health state valuations among patients with musculoskeletal diseases, health care professionals and healthy volunteers.

Authors:  Anja Schwalm; You-Shan Feng; Jörn Moock; Thomas Kohlmann
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2014-10-05

8.  Does diabetes have an impact on health-state utility? a study of Asians in Singapore.

Authors:  P Wang; E S Tai; J Thumboo; Hubertus J M Vrijhoef; Nan Luo
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 9.  Predicting preferences: a neglected aspect of shared decision-making.

Authors:  Nick Sevdalis; Nigel Harvey
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 3.377

10.  Focusing illusion, adaptation and EQ-5D health state descriptions: the difference between patients and public.

Authors:  Yvette Peeters; Thea P M Vliet Vlieland; Anne M Stiggelbout
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-03-03       Impact factor: 3.377

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.