Literature DB >> 12797709

Validity and feasibility of the use of condition-specific outcome measures in economic evaluation.

Elly A Stolk1, Jan J V Busschbach.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Usually, generic questionnaires such as the EQ-5D or Health Utility Index (HUI) are used to obtain utility scores for computing QALYs. Sometimes, however, application of these instruments is not possible, or the responsiveness is doubted. An alternative strategy is to attribute utility scores to health states of a condition-specific outcomes measure (CSOM). We explored the validity and feasibility of this strategy. RESEARCH
DESIGN: Our samples determined utility scores for the health states of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) using time tradeoff (TTO). To reduce costs and time, the general population (n = 169) was interviewed in groups. We tested the validity of the group sessions in students. To test the extent of agreement between values obtained using the group and those obtained through individual administration, 63 students were interviewed individually and 54 in groups.
RESULTS: The utility scores for the disease-specific health states showed good construct validity. Also, the criterion validity of the adapted TTO was confirmed. DISCUSSION: Disease-specific utility scores can be used in QALY analysis by converting them to a generic scale. Efforts should be undertaken to prevent response spreading. Administrating TTO in groups could reduce the time and costs of TTO administration and render the strategy of determining utilities for condition-specific health states more feasible.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12797709     DOI: 10.1023/a:1023453405252

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  18 in total

1.  A proposal to solve the comparability problem in cost-utility analysis.

Authors:  Han Bleichrodt; Carmen Herrero; José Luís Pinto
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 2.  EuroQol: the current state of play.

Authors:  R Brooks
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 2.980

3.  Oral sildenafil in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Sildenafil Study Group.

Authors:  I Goldstein; T F Lue; H Padma-Nathan; R C Rosen; W D Steers; P A Wicker
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-05-14       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Constructing health state preference values from descriptive quality of life outcomes: mission impossible?

Authors:  J V Chancellor; D Coyle; M F Drummond
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  An experimental test of a theoretical foundation for rating-scale valuations.

Authors:  H Bleichrodt; M Johannesson
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1997 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  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

7.  Dollars may not buy as many QALYs as we think: a problem with defining quality-of-life adjustments.

Authors:  D G Fryback; W F Lawrence
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1997 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 8.  NIH Consensus Conference. Impotence. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Impotence.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-07-07       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Assessment of patient preferences among men with prostate cancer.

Authors:  P C Albertsen; R F Nease; A L Potosky
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Toward consistency in cost-utility analyses: using national measures to create condition-specific values.

Authors:  M R Gold; P Franks; K I McCoy; D G Fryback
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  24 in total

1.  Valuation of depression co-occurring with a somatic condition: feasibility of the time trade-off task.

Authors:  Katerina Papageorgiou; Karin M Vermeulen; Fenna R M Leijten; Erik Buskens; Adelita V Ranchor; Maya J Schroevers
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 2.  Evaluation of content on EQ-5D as compared to disease-specific utility measures.

Authors:  Fang-Ju Lin; Louise Longworth; A Simon Pickard
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-06-23       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Utility Values for the CP-6D, a Cerebral Palsy-Specific Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument, Using a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Mina Bahrampour; Richard Norman; Joshua Byrnes; Martin Downes; Paul A Scuffham
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-10-19       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 4.  The Role of Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures in Health Technology Assessment.

Authors:  Donna Rowen; John Brazier; Roberta Ara; Ismail Azzabi Zouraq
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Turning severe into moderate haemophilia by prophylaxis: are we reaching our goal?

Authors:  Ingrid den Uijl; Douwe Biesma; Diederick Grobbee; Kathelijn Fischer
Journal:  Blood Transfus       Date:  2012-11-06       Impact factor: 3.443

6.  Outcome in moderate haemophilia.

Authors:  Ingrid den Uijl; Douwe Biesma; Diederick Grobbee; Kathelijn Fischer
Journal:  Blood Transfus       Date:  2012-11-20       Impact factor: 3.443

Review 7.  Outcome measurement in economic evaluations of public health interventions: a role for the capability approach?

Authors:  Paula K Lorgelly; Kenny D Lawson; Elisabeth A L Fenwick; Andrew H Briggs
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2010-05-06       Impact factor: 3.390

8.  Exploring the impact of changes in neurogenic urinary incontinence frequency and condition-specific quality of life on preference-based outcomes.

Authors:  William Hollingworth; Jonathan D Campbell; Jonathan Kowalski; Arliene Ravelo; Isabelle Girod; Andrew Briggs; Sean D Sullivan
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-01-22       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  The use of disease-specific outcome measures in cost-utility analysis: the development of Dutch societal preference weights for the FACT-L scale.

Authors:  Leida M Lamers; Carin A Uyl-de Groot; Ivonne Buijt
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Quality-of-Life Utility Values for Erectile Function and Sildenafil Treatment.

Authors:  Kenneth J Smith; Mark S Roberts
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.859

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.