Literature DB >> 15259050

To what extent do people prefer health states with higher values? A note on evidence from the EQ-5D valuation set.

Jennifer Roberts1, Paul Dolan.   

Abstract

The EQ-5D general population valuation set (or 'tariff') is increasingly being used in the evaluation of health care interventions and has been recommended by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) for use in cost-utility analyses of health technologies. To be of use to decision-makers, the health gain implied by changes in health state values must reflect individual preferences. At the simplest level, if State A has a higher mean value than State B, then the majority of people should consider a move from B to A to be a good thing. In this paper, we examine the extent to which this is true by re-analysing data from the general population study used to derive the EQ-5D tariff. We show that, on average, the difference in value between two states has to be as large as 0.20 (on a scale where one represents full and zero represents death) for 70% of respondents to agree with the sign of that difference (never mind its size). Results such as these have important implications for the use of the EQ-5D tariff that has been generated from these data. Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15259050     DOI: 10.1002/hec.875

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


  6 in total

1.  Does mode of administration matter? Comparison of online and face-to-face administration of a time trade-off task.

Authors:  Richard Norman; Madeleine T King; Dushyant Clarke; Rosalie Viney; Paula Cronin; Deborah Street
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-02-22       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of utility-based quality of life for osteoporosis-related conditions.

Authors:  L Si; T M Winzenberg; B de Graaff; A J Palmer
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2014-02-22       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 3.  The role of patient preferences in cost-effectiveness analysis: a conflict of values?

Authors:  John E Brazier; Simon Dixon; Julie Ratcliffe
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  A comparison of four different approaches to measuring health utility in depressed patients.

Authors:  Nicholas Turner; John Campbell; Tim J Peters; Nicola Wiles; Sandra Hollinghurst
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2013-05-09       Impact factor: 3.186

5.  Testing a discrete choice experiment including duration to value health states for large descriptive systems: addressing design and sampling issues.

Authors:  Nick Bansback; Arne Risa Hole; Brendan Mulhern; Aki Tsuchiya
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2014-05-20       Impact factor: 4.634

6.  Well-Being and Pluralism.

Authors:  Polly Mitchell; Anna Alexandrova
Journal:  J Happiness Stud       Date:  2020-10-22
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.