Literature DB >> 11242317

"Death" and the valuation of health-related quality of life.

S Macran1, P Kind.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite evidence to the contrary, a common assumption in the area of health status measurement is that the state "dead" is the worst possible health state and by definition should be assigned a value of 0. However, the value of the state "dead" and the notion of states worse than "dead" have never been fully addressed as a research topic. This article demonstrates the extent of the variation in the value given to the state "dead" by individuals and the effects of transformation on individual and aggregate values using data elicited with 2 methods (visual analog scale rating and ranking) that place no constraint on the value given to the state "dead." RESEARCH
DESIGN: Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 253 adults in North Yorkshire, UK, in 1998. Each participant performed ranking and visual analog scale rating exercises for 19 EuroQol EQ-5D health states. CONCLUSIONS AND
RESULTS: Data showed that there is a small group of individuals who, when given the option, choose to place relatively high value on the state "dead" compared with other health states. This did not appear to be due to artifact. Evidence also suggested that the usual assumptions underlying the transformation of health state values, for which the distance between full health and "dead" is used to define the denominator, may not hold for these individuals and may distort aggregate preference structures. The authors stress the need for more systematic inquiry in this field.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11242317     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200103000-00003

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


  22 in total

1.  Swedish population health-related quality of life results using the EQ-5D.

Authors:  K Burström; M Johannesson; F Diderichsen
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Time trade-off and attitudes toward euthanasia: implications of using 'death' as an anchor in health state valuation.

Authors:  Liv A Augestad; Kim Rand-Hendriksen; Knut Stavem; Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-06-08       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Validation of the EQ-5D quality of life instrument in patients after myocardial infarction.

Authors:  David Nowels; Joe McGloin; John M Westfall; Sherry Holcomb
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Eliciting social preference weights for Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung health states.

Authors:  Paul Kind; Susan Macran
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  The better than dead method: feasibility and interpretation of a valuation study.

Authors:  R A van Hoorn; A R T Donders; M Oppe; P F M Stalmeier
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Effects of enzyme replacement therapy on pain and health related quality of life in patients with Fabry disease: data from FOS (Fabry Outcome Survey).

Authors:  B Hoffmann; A Garcia de Lorenzo; A Mehta; M Beck; U Widmer; R Ricci
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 6.318

7.  Responsiveness of the EuroQol (EQ 5-D) and the SF-36 in elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures.

Authors:  J Tidermark; G Bergström; O Svensson; H Törnkvist; S Ponzer
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  How dead is dead? Qualitative findings from participants of combined traditional and lead-time time trade-off valuations.

Authors:  Fatima Al Sayah; Ana Mladenovic; Kathryn Gaebel; Feng Xie; Jeffrey A Johnson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-07-28       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  How bad is depression? Preference score estimates from depressed patients and the general population.

Authors:  Jeffrey M Pyne; John C Fortney; Shanti Tripathi; David Feeny; Peter Ubel; John Brazier
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2009-04-21       Impact factor: 3.402

10.  Keep it simple: ranking health states yields values similar to cardinal measurement approaches.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig; Jan J V Busschbach; Joshua A Salomon
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2008-10-21       Impact factor: 6.437

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.