Literature DB >> 1583939

Relationship between health utility and psychometric health status measures.

D A Revicki1.   

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between health utility and psychometric health status measures. Utility scores derived by standard gamble and categorical rating methods were also compared to determine if they produce equivalent preference scales. Health status and utility was assessed in 73 chronic renal disease patients with anemia (hematocrit less than or equal to 30) participating in a 48-week clinical study. Patient preferences for current health and three hypothetical states were assessed using standard gamble and categorical rating procedures. Standard gamble utility was related to home management (P less than .05); categorical rating utility was related to home management (P less than .05), energy (P less than .05), alertness behavior (P less than .05), social interaction (P less than .05), and life satisfaction scale scores (P less than .05). Only 25-27% of the variance in utility scores was explained by the health status measures. Standard gamble utilities were consistently higher than categorical rating values for end-stage renal disease with hemodialysis (P less than .0001) and severe anemia requiring blood transfusions (P less than .0001). Patient preferences for current health may be influenced in part by their functional status and well-being, risk aversion or risk-taking attitudes, and the cognitive evaluation processes involved in making judgments necessary for the measurement task, as well as their actual preferences.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1583939     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199205001-00027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  27 in total

1.  Patient preferences and utilities for 'off-time' outcomes in the treatment of Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  C S Palmer; J K Schmier; E Snyder; B Scott
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Reliability, validity and responsiveness of two multiattribute utility measures in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Authors:  K Stavem
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  The effect of individually assessed preference weights on the relationship between holistic utilities and nonpreference-based assessment.

Authors:  S J Jansen; A M Stiggelbout; M A Nooij; J Kievit
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 4.  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

5.  The case for domains of function in quality of life assessment.

Authors:  Michelle J Naughton; Sally A Shumaker
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Cost-effectiveness analysis: obstacles to standardisation and its use in regulating pharmaceuticals.

Authors:  B R Luce
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Health-related quality of life as a predictor of mortality among survivors of AKI.

Authors:  Vilija R Joyce; Mark W Smith; Kirsten L Johansen; Mark L Unruh; Andrew M Siroka; Theresa Z O'Connor; Paul M Palevsky
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2012-05-17       Impact factor: 8.237

8.  Estimates of health utility scores in chronic kidney disease.

Authors:  Nigar Sekercioglu; Bryan Curtis; Sean Murphy; Gord Blackhouse; Brendan Barrett
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2017-07-21       Impact factor: 2.370

9.  Health-related quality of life assessment and the pharmaceutical industry.

Authors:  D A Revicki; M Rothman; B Luce
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 10.  The Short-Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey and its use in pharmacoeconomic evaluation.

Authors:  J Brazier
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.