Literature DB >> 15386656

QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature.

Paul Dolan1, Rebecca Shaw, Aki Tsuchiya, Alan Williams.   

Abstract

In cost-utility analysis, the numbers of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained are aggregated according to the sum-ranking (or QALY maximisation) rule. This requires that the social value from health improvements is a simple product of gains in quality of life, length of life and the number of persons treated. The results from a systematic review of the literature suggest that QALY maximisation is descriptively flawed. Rather than being linear in quality and length of life, it would seem that social value diminishes in marginal increments of both. And rather than being neutral to the characteristics of people other than their propensity to generate QALYs, the social value of a health improvement seems to be higher if the person has worse lifetime health prospects and higher if that person has dependents. In addition, there is a desire to reduce inequalities in health. However, there are some uncertainties surrounding the results, particularly in relation to what might be affecting the responses, and there is the need for more studies of the general public that attempt to highlight the relative importance of various key factors. Copyright (c) 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15386656     DOI: 10.1002/hec.924

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


  68 in total

1.  The value of thinly spread QALYs.

Authors:  Duncan Mortimer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Choosing vs. allocating: discrete choice experiments and constant-sum paired comparisons for the elicitation of societal preferences.

Authors:  Chris D Skedgel; Allan J Wailoo; Ron L Akehurst
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-06-12       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 3.  The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means.

Authors:  Christopher McCabe; Karl Claxton; Anthony J Culyer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Weighting must wait: incorporating equity concerns into cost-effectiveness analysis may take longer than expected.

Authors:  Allan Wailoo; Aki Tsuchiya; Christopher McCabe
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Valuing health at the end of life: an empirical study of public preferences.

Authors:  Koonal K Shah; Aki Tsuchiya; Allan J Wailoo
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2013-05-09

6.  The post-2015 development agenda: keeping our focus on the worst off.

Authors:  Daniel Sharp; Joseph Millum
Journal:  Am J Trop Med Hyg       Date:  2015-04-06       Impact factor: 2.345

7.  Are some QALYs more equal than others?

Authors:  E J van de Wetering; N J A van Exel; J M Rose; R J Hoefman; W B F Brouwer
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2014-12-06

8.  Cost-Value Analysis and the SAVE: A Work in Progress, But an Option for Localised Decision Making?

Authors:  Jonathan Karnon; Andrew Partington
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Distribution-Weighted Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Lifetime Health Loss.

Authors:  Ulrikke J V Hernæs; Kjell A Johansson; Trygve Ottersen; Ole F Norheim
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  A cost-based equity weight for use in the economic evaluation of primary health care interventions: case study of the Australian Indigenous population.

Authors:  Katherine S Ong; Margaret Kelaher; Ian Anderson; Rob Carter
Journal:  Int J Equity Health       Date:  2009-10-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.