Literature DB >> 14508872

Conservative versus aggressive follow up of mildly abnormal Pap smears: testing for process utility.

Stephen Birch1, Joy Melnikow, Miriam Kuppermann.   

Abstract

Economic evaluation generally limits outcome measurement to the valuation of health outcomes produced by interventions without considering the impact of processes on utility. We test for process utility by comparing utility measurements for alternative approaches to managing abnormal Pap smears in the context of a fixed outcome. The impact of health care interventions on individual well-being was not confined to health outcomes. Aggressive and conservative follow-up approaches were associated with statistically significant differences in utilities. We also found that relative preferences among different processes may depend on the particular circumstances or pathologies being considered. Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14508872     DOI: 10.1002/hec.783

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  9 in total

Review 1.  Incorporating process utility into quality adjusted life years: a systematic review of empirical studies.

Authors:  Victoria K Brennan; Simon Dixon
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence.

Authors:  Richard De Abreu Lourenco; Marion Haas; Jane Hall; Rosalie Viney
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  What counts as effective genetic counselling for presymptomatic testing in late-onset disorders? A study of the consultand's perspective.

Authors:  Lídia Guimarães; Jorge Sequeiros; Heather Skirton; Milena Paneque
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Preferences for surveillance strategies for women treated for high-grade precancerous cervical lesions.

Authors:  M Kuppermann; J Melnikow; C Slee; D J Tancredi; S Kulasingam; S Birch; L J Helms; A M Bayoumi; G F Sawaya
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2010-08-01       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 5.  Valuing patients' experiences of healthcare processes: towards broader applications of existing methods.

Authors:  Mandy Ryan; Philip Kinghorn; Vikki A Entwistle; Jill J Francis
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2014-01-24       Impact factor: 4.634

6.  Developing a questionnaire to measure the psychosocial impact of an abnormal cervical smear result and its subsequent management: the TOMBOLA (Trial of Management of Borderline and Other Low-grade Abnormal Smears) trial.

Authors:  N M Gray; L Sharp; S C Cotton; M Avis; Z Philips; I Russell; L G Walker; D Whynes; J Little
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 7.  Conceptualising 'Benefits Beyond Health' in the Context of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis.

Authors:  Lidia Engel; Stirling Bryan; David G T Whitehurst
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2021-08-23       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  A survey of population-based utility scores for cervical cancer prevention.

Authors:  Leonardo Simonella; Kirsten Howard; Karen Canfell
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2014-12-11

9.  Psychosocial morbidity in women with abnormal cervical cytology managed by cytological surveillance or initial colposcopy: longitudinal analysis from the TOMBOLA randomised trial.

Authors:  S Fielding; K Rothnie; N M Gray; J Little; M E Cruickshank; K Neal; L G Walker; D Whynes; S C Cotton; L Sharp
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2016-06-14       Impact factor: 3.894

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.