Literature DB >> 1604362

Methods for quality adjustment of life years.

E Nord1.   

Abstract

Several valuation techniques are in use for quality adjusting life years in cost utility analysis. The paper gives an overview of the variability in results. A close inspection of a number of instruments with respect to their theme, instructions, decision framing and the phrasing of questions make many of the observed differences in results understandable. When judging the validity of the different techniques, three points should be kept in mind. One is that statements about validity should be made with respect to concrete versions rather than broad categories like 'the rating scale', 'time trade-off' etc. Another point is that a valuation technique that is valid in clinical decision analysis may not be valid in health program evaluation, and vice versa. The third point is that quality weights for life years are empirically more meaningful, in the sense that they are more amenable to empirical testing, if they are interpreted simply as preference weights rather than measures of amounts of well life in the utilitarian tradition. Time trade-off with a moderate time horizon is recommended in clinical decision analysis, while a combination of time trade-off and a variant of person trade-off is recommended in health program evaluation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1604362     DOI: 10.1016/0277-9536(92)90211-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  49 in total

Review 1.  The value of DALY life: problems with ethics and validity of disability adjusted life years.

Authors:  T Arnesen; E Nord
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-11-27

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.  Feasibility, validity and test-retest reliability of scaling methods for health states: the visual analogue scale and the time trade-off.

Authors:  X Badia; S Monserrat; M Roset; M Herdman
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Setting health priorities in a Swiss canton: what do different methods tell us?

Authors:  D Schopper; A M Torres; J Pereira; C Ammon; N Cuende; M Alonso; A Baylin; A Ronchi; A Rougemont
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 3.710

Review 5.  Benefit valuation in economic evaluation of cancer therapies. A systematic review of the published literature.

Authors:  J Brown; M Sculpher
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 6.  The use of QALY and non-QALY measures of health-related quality of life. Assessing the state of the art.

Authors:  M Deverill; J Brazier; C Green; A Booth
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  The influence of ill-health experience on the valuation of health.

Authors:  X Badia; M Herdman; P Kind
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  A pragmatic defence of health status measures.

Authors:  R Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  1996-11

9.  Comparison of preference-based utilities of the 15D, EQ-5D and SF-6D in patients with HIV/AIDS.

Authors:  Knut Stavem; Stig S Frøland; Kjell B Hellum
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 4.147

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

Authors:  Peter A Ubel; George Loewenstein; Christopher Jepson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.