Literature DB >> 19757865

Methods for measuring temporary health States for cost-utility analyses.

Davene R Wright1, Eve Wittenberg, J Shannon Swan, Rebecca A Miksad, Lisa A Prosser.   

Abstract

A variety of methods are available to measure preferences for temporary health states for cost-utility analyses. The objectives of this review were to summarize the available temporary health-state valuation methods, identify advantages and disadvantages of each, and identify areas for future research. We describe the key aspects of each method and summarize advantages and disadvantages of each method in terms of consistency with QALY theory, relevance to temporary health-state-specific domains, ease of use, time preference, and performance in validation studies. Two broad categories of methods were identified: traditional and adapted. Traditional methods were health status instruments, time trade-off (TTO), and the standard gamble (SG). Methods adapted specifically for temporary health-state valuation were TTO with specified duration of the health state, TTO with a lifespan modification, waiting trade-off, chained approaches for TTO and SG, and sleep trade-off. Advantages and disadvantages vary by method and no 'gold standard' method emerged. Selection of a method to value temporary health states will depend on the relative importance of the following considerations: ability to accurately capture the unique characteristics of the temporary health state, level of respondent burden and cognition, theoretical consistency of elicited preference values with the overall purpose of the study, and resources available for study development and data collection. Further research should focus on evaluating validity, reliability and feasibility of temporary health-state valuation methods.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19757865     DOI: 10.2165/11317060-000000000-00000

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  42 in total

1.  The validity of time trade-off values in calculating QALYs: constant proportional time trade-off versus the proportional heuristic.

Authors:  Paul Dolan; Peep Stalmeier
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Equity weights in the allocation of health care: the rank-dependent QALY model.

Authors:  Han Bleichrodt; Enrico Diecidue; John Quiggin
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Chained time trade-off and standard gamble methods. Applications in oesophageal cancer.

Authors:  Paul McNamee; Sharon Glendinning; Jonathan Shenfine; Nick Steen; S Michael Griffin; John Bond
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2004-02

4.  US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model.

Authors:  James W Shaw; Jeffrey A Johnson; Stephen Joel Coons
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  The validity of QALYs: an experimental test of constant proportional tradeoff and utility independence.

Authors:  H Bleichrodt; M Johannesson
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1997 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Preference for fractures and other glucocorticoid-associated adverse effects among rheumatoid arthritis patients.

Authors:  L A Merlino; I Bagchi; T N Taylor; P Utrie; E Chrischilles; W Sumner; A Mudano; K G Saag
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2001 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Effects of framing and level of probability on patients' preferences for cancer chemotherapy.

Authors:  A M O'Connor
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  A cost utility analysis of treatment options for gallstone disease: methodological issues and results.

Authors:  J Cook; J Richardson; A Street
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1994 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.046

9.  Community and patient values for preventing herpes zoster.

Authors:  Tracy A Lieu; Ismael Ortega-Sanchez; G Thomas Ray; Donna Rusinak; W Katherine Yih; Peter W Choo; Irene Shui; Ken Kleinman; Rafael Harpaz; Lisa A Prosser
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Methodological issues of patient utility measurement. Experience from two clinical trials.

Authors:  M P Rutten-van Mölken; C H Bakker; E K van Doorslaer; S van der Linden
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  15 in total

1.  Health utility elicitation: is there still a role for direct methods?

Authors:  Lisa A Prosser; Scott D Grosse; Eve Wittenberg
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Estimating utility values for vesicoureteral reflux in the general public using an online tool.

Authors:  Jessica C Lloyd; Talitha Yen; Ricardo Pietrobon; John S Wiener; Sherry S Ross; Paul J Kokorowski; Caleb P Nelson; Jonathan C Routh
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2014-04-04       Impact factor: 1.830

3.  Women's values and preferences for thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy: a comparison of direct-choice and decision analysis using patient specific utilities.

Authors:  Mark H Eckman; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Gordon H Guyatt; Shanil Ebrahim; Kari A O Tikkinen; Luciane Cruz Lopes; Ignacio Neumann; Sarah D McDonald; Yuqing Zhang; Qi Zhou; Elie A Akl; Ann Flem Jacobsen; Amparo Santamaría; Joyce Maria Annichino-Bizzacchi; Wael Bitar; Per Morten Sandset; Shannon M Bates
Journal:  Thromb Res       Date:  2015-05-22       Impact factor: 3.944

4.  Developing an Atrial Fibrillation Guideline Support Tool (AFGuST) for shared decision making.

Authors:  Mark H Eckman; Ruth E Wise; Katherine Naylor; Lora Arduser; Gregory Y H Lip; Brett Kissela; Matthew Flaherty; Dawn Kleindorfer; Faisal Khan; Daniel P Schauer; John Kues; Alexandru Costea
Journal:  Curr Med Res Opin       Date:  2015-03-13       Impact factor: 2.580

5.  EuroQol (EQ-5D) health utility scores for patients with migraine.

Authors:  Ruifeng Xu; Ralph P Insinga; Wendy Golden; X Henry Hu
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-11-10       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 6.  A systematic review of utility values for chemotherapy-related adverse events.

Authors:  Fatiha H Shabaruddin; Li-Chia Chen; Rachel A Elliott; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Patient and societal value functions for the testing morbidities index.

Authors:  J Shannon Swan; Chung Yin Kong; Janie M Lee; Omosalewa Itauma; Elkan F Halpern; Pablo A Lee; Sergey Vavinskiy; Olubunmi Williams; Emilie S Zoltick; Karen Donelan
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2013-05-20       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  Using a discrete choice experiment to elicit time trade-off and willingness-to-pay amounts for influenza health-related quality of life at different ages.

Authors:  Lisa A Prosser; Katherine Payne; Donna Rusinak; Ping Shi; Mark Messonnier
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 9.  Is Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) a valid indicator for health systems evaluation?

Authors:  Martin Romero; David Vivas-Consuelo; Nelson Alvis-Guzman
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2013-12-11

10.  How is the most severe health state being valued by the general population?

Authors:  Mihir Gandhi; Julian Thumboo; Hwee-Lin Wee; Nan Luo; Yin-Bun Cheung
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2014-10-25       Impact factor: 3.186

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.