Literature DB >> 14516169

Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public.

Peter A Ubel1, George Loewenstein, Christopher Jepson.   

Abstract

There is often a discrepancy between quality of life estimates from patients and the general public. These discrepancies are of concern to the disability community, who worry that the public does not understand how valuable life can be for people with disabilities; policy planners, who must decide whose quality of life estimates to use in economic analysis; and practitioners and patients facing difficult medical decisions, who may have to worry that people have difficulty imagining unfamiliar health states. We outline several factors that may contribute to these discrepancies. Discrepancies might occur because patients and the public interpret health state descriptions differently--for example, making different assumptions about the recency of onset of the health state, or about the presence of comorbidities. Discrepancies might also arise if patients adapt to illness and the public does not predict this adaptation; because of response shift in how people use quality of life scales; because of a focusing illusion whereby people forget to consider obvious aspects of unfamiliar health states; because of contrast effects, whereby negative life events make people less bothered by less severe negative life events; and because of different vantage points, with patients viewing their illness in terms of the benefits that would result from regaining health, while the public views the illness in terms of the costs associated with losing good health. Decisions about whose values to measure for the purposes of economic analyses, and how to measure discrepancies, should take these potential contributing factors into account.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14516169     DOI: 10.1023/a:1025119931010

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


  28 in total

1.  Clinical understanding and clinical implications of response shift.

Authors:  I B Wilson
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 4.634

2.  The role of decision analysis in informed consent: choosing between intuition and systematicity.

Authors:  P A Ubel; G Loewenstein
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 3.  Social comparison activity under threat: downward evaluation and upward contacts.

Authors:  S E Taylor; M Lobel
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1989-10       Impact factor: 8.934

4.  Value preferences for nursing home outcomes.

Authors:  R L Kane; R M Bell; S Z Riegler
Journal:  Gerontologist       Date:  1986-06

5.  Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes.

Authors:  E Nord; J L Pinto; J Richardson; P Menzel; P Ubel
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.046

6.  Associations between health status and utilities implications for policy.

Authors:  L A Lenert; J R Treadwell; C E Schwartz
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  A comparison of scoring weights for the EuroQol derived from patients and the general public.

Authors:  D Polsky; R J Willke; K Scott; K A Schulman; H A Glick
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 3.046

8.  Societal value, the person trade-off, and the dilemma of whose values to measure for cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  P A Ubel; J Richardson; P Menzel
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.046

9.  Health values of the seriously ill. SUPPORT investigators.

Authors:  J Tsevat; E F Cook; M L Green; D B Matchar; N V Dawson; S K Broste; A W Wu; R S Phillips; R K Oye; L Goldman
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1995-04-01       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  The time trade-off technique: how do the valuations of breast cancer patients compare to those of other groups?

Authors:  J Ashby; M O'Hanlon; M J Buxton
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 4.147

View more
  118 in total

1.  Prospective study of health status preferences and changes in preferences over time in older adults.

Authors:  Terri R Fried; Amy L Byers; William T Gallo; Peter H Van Ness; Virginia R Towle; John R O'Leary; Joel A Dubin
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2006-04-24

2.  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

3.  Whose quality of life? or Whose decision?

Authors:  Dennis G Fryback
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Comparison of hypothetical and experienced EQ-5D valuations: relative weights of the five dimensions.

Authors:  Kim Rand-Hendriksen; Liv Ariane Augestad; Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen; Knut Stavem
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Valuing children's health: whose quality of life matters?

Authors:  Eve Wittenberg
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-08-01       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Abandoning the language of "response shift": a plea for conceptual clarity in distinguishing scale recalibration from true changes in quality of life.

Authors:  Peter A Ubel; Yvette Peeters; Dylan Smith
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-01-29       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 7.  A review and critique of studies reporting utility values for schizophrenia-related health states.

Authors:  Ifigeneia Mavranezouli
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  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

9.  Critical limb ischemia and its impact on patient health preferences and quality of life-an international study.

Authors:  Giovanni Pisa; Thomas Reinhold; Eliot Obi-Tabot; Maria Bodoria; Bernd Brüggenjürgen
Journal:  Int J Angiol       Date:  2012-09

10.  [Temporal changes in quality of life after prostate carcinoma].

Authors:  M Perl; A Waldmann; R Pritzkuleit; A Katalinic
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 0.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.