Literature DB >> 15085910

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

Francis S Lobo1, Cynthia R Gross, Barbara J Matthees.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to estimate and compare preference scores derived from MOS Short Form-36 (SF-36) data for a sample of lung transplant patients using three methodologies: Fryback et al. (Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 1-9), Nichol et al. (Med Decis Making 2001; 21: 105-112) and Brazier et al. (J Health Econ 2002: 21: 271-292). Data were gathered from 99 lung transplant recipients using a mail survey, which included the SF-36 and other health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures. The mean preference score for the sample was 0.643 (range 0.43-0.83), 0.765 (range 0.36-1.0), and 0.697 (range 0.33-1.00) for Fryback, Nichol and Brazier methods, respectively. Correlations between the derived scores and visual analogue ratings of health (0.58-0.68) and pulmonary symptoms (-0.59 to -0.62) were moderate to good and in the expected directions. The mean preferences of patients grouped by levels of dyspnea, depression symptoms, illness burden, and self-rated general health differed significantly with all methods and supported the construct validity of the derived scores as measures of preference. The Nichol and Brazier scores, both derived with standard gamble utilities, were generally higher than Fryback scores, which are not utility-based. Given the popularity of the SF-36, these three methods could be useful where direct elicitation of preferences is not feasible. Researchers must be cognizant of the derivation method used, as absolute preference levels, hence quality adjusted life years (QALYs), will differ by method.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15085910     DOI: 10.1023/B:QURE.0000018488.95206.d6

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


  48 in total

Review 1.  Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques.

Authors:  C Green; J Brazier; M Deverill
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36.

Authors:  John Brazier; Jennifer Roberts; Mark Deverill
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Evaluating quality-adjusted life years: estimation of the health utility index (HUI2) from the SF-36.

Authors:  M B Nichol; N Sengupta; D R Globe
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2001 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.

Authors:  J E Ware; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Improvement in quality of life after lung transplantation: a preliminary study. The University of Washington Medical Center Lung Transplant Study Group.

Authors:  S D Ramsey; D L Patrick; S Lewis; R K Albert; G Raghu
Journal:  J Heart Lung Transplant       Date:  1995 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 10.247

6.  Ongoing assessment of health status in patients with diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  D R Nerenz; D P Repasky; F W Whitehouse; D M Kahkonen
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 7.  Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life.

Authors:  G W Torrance
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

8.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  A health-related quality of life instrument for patients evaluated for epilepsy surgery.

Authors:  B G Vickrey; R D Hays; J Graber; R Rausch; J Engel; R H Brook
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 10.  Measuring health-related quality of life.

Authors:  G H Guyatt; D H Feeny; D L Patrick
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1993-04-15       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  8 in total

1.  Estimating utilities for chronic kidney disease, using SF-36 and SF-12-based measures: challenges in a population of veterans with diabetes.

Authors:  Mangala Rajan; Kuan-Chi Lai; Chin-Lin Tseng; Shirley Qian; Alfredo Selim; Lewis Kazis; Leonard Pogach; Anushua Sinha
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-03-06       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  A thematic analysis of quality of life in lung transplant: the existing evidence and implications for future directions.

Authors:  J P Singer; J Chen; P D Blanc; L E Leard; J Kukreja; H Chen
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2013-02-22       Impact factor: 8.086

3.  Health-related quality of life changes associated with buprenorphine treatment for opioid dependence.

Authors:  Dennis W Raisch; Heather M Campbell; David A Garnand; Mark A Jones; Mike R Sather; Rupali Naik; Walter Ling
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2011-10-11       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 4.  Technology and outcomes assessment in lung transplantation.

Authors:  Roger D Yusen
Journal:  Proc Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2009-01-15

5.  Converting the SF-12 into the EQ-5D: an empirical comparison of methodologies.

Authors:  Ling-Hsiang Chuang; Paul Kind
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Economic evaluation of increasing population rates of cardiac catheterization.

Authors:  Fiona M Clement; William A Ghali; Stephane Rinfret; Braden J Manns
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-11-24       Impact factor: 2.655

7.  Are decisions using cost-utility analyses robust to choice of SF-36/SF-12 preference-based algorithm?

Authors:  A Simon Pickard; Zhixiao Wang; Surrey M Walton; Todd A Lee
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2005-03-04       Impact factor: 3.186

8.  Health-state utilities in a prisoner population: a cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  Christopher A K Y Chong; Sicong Li; Geoffrey C Nguyen; Andrew Sutton; Michael H Levy; Tony Butler; Murray D Krahn; Hla-Hla Thein
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2009-08-28       Impact factor: 3.186

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.