Literature DB >> 21310500

Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments.

Emily Lancsar1, John Wildman, Cam Donaldson, Mandy Ryan, Rachel Baker.   

Abstract

This paper presents the first attempt to use a discrete choice experiment to derive distributional weights for quality adjusted life years (QALYs), based on characteristics (age and severity) of the beneficiaries. A novel approach using the Hicksian compensating variation is applied. Advantages include derivation of weights for QALYs, not just for life or life years saved, and investigation of the impact of the size of the health gain by allowing the gain to be traded against other characteristics. Results suggest one would generally not weight QALYs, except in a small number of specific cases and in those cases the weights are relatively small. Methodological challenges are highlighted as is a future research agenda.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21310500     DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.01.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Health Econ        ISSN: 0167-6296            Impact factor:   3.883


  26 in total

1.  Choosing vs. allocating: discrete choice experiments and constant-sum paired comparisons for the elicitation of societal preferences.

Authors:  Chris D Skedgel; Allan J Wailoo; Ron L Akehurst
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-06-12       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Are some QALYs more equal than others?

Authors:  E J van de Wetering; N J A van Exel; J M Rose; R J Hoefman; W B F Brouwer
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2014-12-06

3.  Discrete Choice Experiments: A Guide to Model Specification, Estimation and Software.

Authors:  Emily Lancsar; Denzil G Fiebig; Arne Risa Hole
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Harnessing the potential to quantify public preferences for healthcare priorities through citizens' juries.

Authors:  Jennifer A Whitty; Paul Burton; Elizabeth Kendall; Julie Ratcliffe; Andrew Wilson; Peter Littlejohns; Paul A Scuffham
Journal:  Int J Health Policy Manag       Date:  2014-06-16

5.  Transforming EQ-5D utilities for use in cost–value analysis of health programs.

Authors:  Erik Nord; Rune Johansen
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2015-04

Review 6.  Reconceptualising the external validity of discrete choice experiments.

Authors:  Emily Lancsar; Joffre Swait
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Unchained melody: revisiting the estimation of SF-6D values.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2015-09-10

8.  How important is severity for the evaluation of health services: new evidence using the relative social willingness to pay instrument.

Authors:  Jeff Richardson; Angelo Iezzi; Aimee Maxwell
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2016-07-25

Review 9.  A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting.

Authors:  Jennifer A Whitty; Emily Lancsar; Kylie Rixon; Xanthe Golenko; Julie Ratcliffe
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 10.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Michael D Clark; Domino Determann; Stavros Petrou; Domenico Moro; Esther W de Bekker-Grob
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.