Literature DB >> 18404664

Impact of the recall period on measuring health utilities for acute events.

Nick Bansback1, Huiying Sun, Daphne P Guh, Xin Li, Bohdan Nosyk, Susan Griffin, Paul G Barnett, Aslam H Anis.   

Abstract

The impact of healthcare interventions on health utility values is most frequently measured using a preference-based instrument. Each of the available instruments instructs the respondent to report their health status over different recall periods ranging from the current day to the past month. In an ongoing randomised controlled trial in patients with advanced HIV disease, the impact of using a preference-based instrument with a 1-week recall period vs a 1-day recall period (e.g. today) for capturing recently resolved serious adverse events was measured. The results suggest that the instrument with a 1-week recall period gave lower utility values for recently resolved events in comparison with the instrument with a 1-day recall period. A plausible interpretation of these results is that the recall period was adhered to; for example, patients ignored the impact of recently resolved events in their response if the questionnaire asked them only about their health today. While there are limitations to our study, we believe further consideration should be given to the recall period used for preference-based instruments, and future research should examine other patient groups using a single instrument with multiple recall periods.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18404664     DOI: 10.1002/hec.1351

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


  6 in total

1.  Discriminative capacity of the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and SF-12 as measures of health status in population health survey.

Authors:  Oriol Cunillera; Ricard Tresserras; Luis Rajmil; Gemma Vilagut; Pilar Brugulat; Mike Herdman; Anna Mompart; Antonia Medina; Yolanda Pardo; Jordi Alonso; John Brazier; Montse Ferrer
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-03-31       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Challenges with cost-utility analyses of behavioural interventions among older adults at risk for dementia.

Authors:  Jennifer C Davis; Stirling Bryan; Carlo A Marra; Ging-Yuek R Hsiung; Teresa Liu-Ambrose
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2013-11-06       Impact factor: 13.800

Review 3.  Longitudinal and cross sectional assessments of health utility in adults with HIV/AIDS: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Bach Xuan Tran; Long Hoang Nguyen; Arto Ohinmaa; Rachel Marie Maher; Vuong Minh Nong; Carl A Latkin
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-01-22       Impact factor: 2.655

4.  Challenges in Using Recommended Quality of Life Measures to Assess Fluctuating Health: A Think-Aloud Study to Understand How Recall and Timing of Assessment Influence Patient Responses.

Authors:  Sabina Sanghera; Axel Walther; Tim J Peters; Joanna Coast
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2021-12-02       Impact factor: 3.481

5.  Comparison of the measurement properties of SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L in a Chinese population health survey.

Authors:  Shitong Xie; Dingyao Wang; Jing Wu; Chunyu Liu; Wenchen Jiang
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2022-06-16       Impact factor: 3.077

6.  Is the EQ-5D fit for purpose in asthma? Acceptability and content validity from the patient perspective.

Authors:  Diane Whalley; Gary Globe; Rebecca Crawford; Lynda Doward; Eskinder Tafesse; John Brazier; David Price
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2018-08-03       Impact factor: 3.186

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.