Literature DB >> 20454864

Developing preference-based health measures: using Rasch analysis to generate health state values.

Tracey A Young1, Donna Rowen, Josephine Norquist, John E Brazier.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Condition-specific measures may not always have independent items, yet existing techniques of developing health state utility values from these measures are inappropriate when items are not independent. This study develops methods for deriving and valuing health states for a condition-specific preference-based measure where items are not independent.
METHODS: The analysis has three stages: firstly, Rasch analysis is used to develop a health state classification system from the Flushing Symptoms Questionnaire (FSQ) that is amenable to valuation and to identify a set of health states for valuation. Secondly, a valuation survey of the health states using time-trade-off (TTO) methods is conducted to elicit health state values. Finally, regression models are applied to map the relationship between mean TTO values and Rasch logit values. The model is then used to estimate health state values for all possible health states.
RESULTS: Rasch models were fitted to 1,270 responders to the FSQ and a series of 16 health states were identified for the valuation exercise. An ordinary least squares model best described the relationship between mean TTO values and Rasch logit values (R (2) = 0.958; root mean square error = 0.042).
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates how health state utility values can be mapped onto Rasch logit values in order to value all states defined by the FSQ, a condition-specific measure where items are not independent. This should significantly enhance research in this field.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20454864     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-010-9646-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  12 in total

Review 1.  A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation.

Authors:  J Brazier; M Deverill; C Green; R Harper; A Booth
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.014

2.  Investigating rating scale category utility.

Authors:  J M Linacre
Journal:  J Outcome Meas       Date:  1999

3.  Application of Rasch analysis in the development and application of quality of life instruments.

Authors:  Alan Tennant; Stephen P McKenna; Peter Hagell
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2004 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.725

4.  Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system.

Authors:  David Feeny; William Furlong; George W Torrance; Charles H Goldsmith; Zenglong Zhu; Sonja DePauw; Margaret Denton; Michael Boyle
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey.

Authors:  J Brazier; T Usherwood; R Harper; K Thomas
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  Single-item indicators in nursing research.

Authors:  J M Youngblut; G R Casper
Journal:  Res Nurs Health       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 2.228

7.  Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states.

Authors:  P Dolan
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  The first stage of developing preference-based measures: constructing a health-state classification using Rasch analysis.

Authors:  Tracey Young; Yaling Yang; John E Brazier; Aki Tsuchiya; Karin Coyne
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-12-11       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Validation of a questionnaire to assess niacin-induced cutaneous flushing.

Authors:  Josephine M Norquist; Douglas J Watson; Qinfen Yu; John F Paolini; Kelly McQuarrie; Nancy C Santanello
Journal:  Curr Med Res Opin       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 2.580

10.  Estimating a preference-based single index from the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire.

Authors:  Yaling Yang; John Brazier; Aki Tsuchiya; Karin Coyne
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2008-07-18       Impact factor: 5.725

View more
  16 in total

Review 1.  Evaluation of content on EQ-5D as compared to disease-specific utility measures.

Authors:  Fang-Ju Lin; Louise Longworth; A Simon Pickard
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-06-23       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Using Rasch analysis to form plausible health states amenable to valuation: the development of CORE-6D from a measure of common mental health problems (CORE-OM).

Authors:  Ifigeneia Mavranezouli; John E Brazier; Tracey A Young; Michael Barkham
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-10-23       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Development and refinement of the WAItE: a new obesity-specific quality of life measure for adolescents.

Authors:  Yemi Oluboyede; Claire Hulme; Andrew Hill
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-05-13       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 4.  The Role of Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures in Health Technology Assessment.

Authors:  Donna Rowen; John Brazier; Roberta Ara; Ismail Azzabi Zouraq
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  Challenges of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Novel Therapeutics for Inherited Retinal Diseases.

Authors:  K Thiran Jayasundera; Rebhi O Abuzaitoun; Gabrielle D Lacy; Maria Fernanda Abalem; Gregory M Saltzman; Thomas A Ciulla; Mark W Johnson
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-08-22       Impact factor: 5.258

6.  Development of a preference-based index from the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25.

Authors:  Anne M Rentz; Jonathan W Kowalski; John G Walt; Ron D Hays; John E Brazier; Ren Yu; Paul Lee; Neil Bressler; Dennis A Revicki
Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 7.389

7.  Development of a preference-based heart disease-specific health state classification system using MacNew heart disease-related quality of life instrument.

Authors:  Sanjeewa Kularatna; Donna Rowen; Clara Mukuria; Steven McPhail; Gang Chen; Brendan Mulhern; Jennifer A Whitty; Joshua Byrnes; Paul Scuffham; John Atherton; Stefan Höfer; William Parsonage
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-05-26       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 8.  Dimensions Used in Instruments for QALY Calculation: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Moustapha Touré; Christian R C Kouakou; Thomas G Poder
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-04-21       Impact factor: 3.390

9.  Creating scenarios of the impact of COPD and their relationship to COPD Assessment Test (CAT™) scores.

Authors:  Paul W Jones; Margaret Tabberer; Wen-Hung Chen
Journal:  BMC Pulm Med       Date:  2011-08-11       Impact factor: 3.317

10.  Rasch analysis of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) in burn scars.

Authors:  Martijn B A van der Wal; Wim E Tuinebreijer; Monica C T Bloemen; Pauline D H M Verhaegen; Esther Middelkoop; Paul P M van Zuijlen
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2011-05-20       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.