Literature DB >> 16466271

Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states?

John Brazier1, Ron Akehurst, Alan Brennan, Paul Dolan, Karl Claxton, Chris McCabe, Mark Sculpher, Aki Tsuchyia.   

Abstract

Currently, health state values are usually obtained from members of the general public trying to imagine what the state would be like rather than by patients who are actually in the various states of health. Valuations of a health state by patients tend to vary from those of the general population, and this seems to be due to a range of factors including errors in the descriptive system, adaptation to the state and changes in internal standards. The question of whose values are used in cost-effectiveness analysis is ultimately a normative one, but the decision should be informed by evidence on the reasons for the differences. There is a case for obtaining better informed general population preferences by providing more information on what it is like for patients (including the process of adaptation).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16466271     DOI: 10.2165/00148365-200504040-00002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy        ISSN: 1175-5652            Impact factor:   2.561


  51 in total

1.  Empirical validation of patient versus population preferences in calculating QALYs.

Authors:  Eva-Julia Weyler; Afschin Gandjour
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-04-21       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Comparison of hypothetical and experienced EQ-5D valuations: relative weights of the five dimensions.

Authors:  Kim Rand-Hendriksen; Liv Ariane Augestad; Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen; Knut Stavem
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 3.  A review and critique of studies reporting utility values for schizophrenia-related health states.

Authors:  Ifigeneia Mavranezouli
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Discounting health effects in pharmacoeconomic evaluations: current controversies.

Authors:  Stuart Birks
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  The social tariff of EQ-5D is not adequate to assess quality of life in patients with low back pain.

Authors:  Javier Zamora; Francisco Kovacs; Víctor Abraira; Carmen Fernández; Pablo Lázaro
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-11-17       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Constructing indirect utility models: some observations on the principles and practice of mapping to obtain health state utilities.

Authors:  Christopher McCabe; Richard Edlin; David Meads; Chantelle Brown; Samer Kharroubi
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 7.  Incorporating process utility into quality adjusted life years: a systematic review of empirical studies.

Authors:  Victoria K Brennan; Simon Dixon
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Predicting EQ-5D utility scores from the 25-item National Eye Institute Vision Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25) in patients with age-related macular degeneration.

Authors:  Nalin Payakachat; Kent H Summers; Andreas M Pleil; Matthew M Murawski; Joseph Thomas; Kristofer Jennings; James G Anderson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-06-19       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 9.  Experience-Based Values: A Framework for Classifying Different Types of Experience in Health Valuation Research.

Authors:  Patricia Cubi-Molla; Koonal Shah; Kristina Burström
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 3.883

10.  A value set for the EQ-5D based on experienced health states: development and testing for the German population.

Authors:  Reiner Leidl; Peter Reitmeir
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.