Literature DB >> 10982099

Validity and interpretation of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life.

L Lenert1, R M Kaplan.   

Abstract

Utilities are numeric measurements that reflect an individual's beliefs about the desirableness of a health condition, willingness to take risks to gain health benefits, and preferences for time. This report discusses the approaches to assess and compare the validity of methods used to assign utilities for cost-utility analysis. Threats to validity include construct underrepresentation and construct-irrelevant variance. Construct underrepresentation occurs when a stimulus presented to a judge fails to fully represent the depth and complexity of information required in actual judgments. Construct-irrelevant variation occurs when factors irrelevant to preferences influence measurements of utilities. Among several factors that cause construct-irrelevant variation are cognitive abilities, numeracy skills, emotions and prejudices, and the elicitation procedure. Commonly used elicitation methods (visual-analog scales, time tradeoff, and standard gamble) capture different facets of utilities (desirableness of states, time preferences, and risk attitude) to different degrees. The validity of an elicitation protocol depends (1) on the degree to which its scaling method captures the relevant facets of utility and (2) on the degree to which measurements are influenced by construct-irrelevant variation. Discrete-state health index models provide an alternative to direct elicitation of utilities and work by attaching fixed preference weights to observable health states. The creation of discrete-state models with current technologies requires the adoption of strong assumptions about the scaling properties of utilities. Future research must refine methods of eliciting utilities and identify sources of construct-irrelevant variability that reduce the validity of utility assessments. Because of the impact of variation in techniques on measurements, we do not recommend the combination of utilities elicited with different protocols in cost-utility analysis and do not recommend the display of cost-utility ratios from different studies in comparison or "league" tables.

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10982099     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200009002-00021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  41 in total

1.  Estimation and comparison of derived preference scores from the SF-36 in lung transplant patients.

Authors:  Francis S Lobo; Cynthia R Gross; Barbara J Matthees
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Neck pain patients' preference scores for their current health.

Authors:  Gabrielle van der Velde; Sheilah Hogg-Johnson; Ahmed M Bayoumi; Pierre Côté; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; Eric L Hurwitz; Murray Krahn
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-03-27       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 3.  Evidence from cost-effectiveness research.

Authors:  Katia Noyes; Robert G Holloway
Journal:  NeuroRx       Date:  2004-07

4.  Health related quality of life in genital herpes: a pilot comparison of measures.

Authors:  D N Fisman
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.519

5.  Health values of patients coinfected with HIV/hepatitis C: are two viruses worse than one?

Authors:  Joseph M Mrus; Kenneth E Sherman; Anthony C Leonard; Susan N Sherman; Karen L Mandell; Joel Tsevat
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Validity and responsiveness of generic preference-based HRQOL instruments in chronic epilepsy.

Authors:  J T Langfitt; B G Vickrey; M P McDermott; S Messing; A T Berg; S S Spencer; M R Sperling; C W Bazil; S Shinnar
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Marker states and a health state prompt provide modest improvements in the reliability and validity of the standard gamble and rating scale in prostate cancer patients.

Authors:  Karen E Bremner; George Tomlinson; Murray D Krahn
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-10-03       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Health outcome priorities among competing cardiovascular, fall injury, and medication-related symptom outcomes.

Authors:  Mary E Tinetti; Gail J McAvay; Terri R Fried; Heather G Allore; Joanna C Salmon; Joanne M Foody; Luann Bianco; Sandra Ginter; Liana Fraenkel
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2008-07-24       Impact factor: 5.562

9.  Variation in treatment preferences and care goals among older patients with diabetes and their physicians.

Authors:  Marshall H Chin; Melinda L Drum; Lei Jin; Morgan E Shook; Elbert S Huang; David O Meltzer
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Assessment and improvement of figures to visually convey benefit and risk of stroke thrombolysis.

Authors:  Jigneshkumar Gadhia; Sidney Starkman; Bruce Ovbiagele; Latisha Ali; David Liebeskind; Jeffrey L Saver
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2010-01-07       Impact factor: 7.914

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.