Literature DB >> 23244799

The use of qualitative methods in developing the descriptive systems of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life for use in economic evaluation.

Katherine Stevens1, Simon Palfreyman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To describe how qualitative methods can be used in the development of descriptive systems of preference-based measures (PBMs) of health-related quality of life.
METHODS: The requirements of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and other agencies together with the increasing use of patient-reported outcome measures has led to an increase in the demand for PBMs. Recently, interest has grown in developing new PBMs and while previous research on PBMs has mainly focused on the methods of valuation, research into the methods of developing descriptive systems is an emerging field.
RESULTS: Traditionally, descriptive systems of PBMs were developed by using top-down methods, where content was derived from existing measures, the literature, or health surveys. A contrasting approach is a bottom-up methodology, which takes the views of patients or laypeople on how their life is affected by their health. This approach generally requires the use of qualitative methods. Qualitative methods lend themselves well to the development of PBMs. They also ensure that the measure has appropriate language, content validity, and responsiveness to change. While the use of qualitative methods in the development of non-PBMs is fairly standard, their use in developing PBMs was until recently nonexistent.
CONCLUSIONS: In this article, we illustrate the use of qualitative methods by presenting two case studies of recently developed PBMs, one generic and one condition specific. We outline the stages involved, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the approach, and compare with the top-down approach used in the majority of PBMs to date.
Copyright © 2012 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23244799     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2204

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  19 in total

Review 1.  How Well Do the Generic Multi-attribute Utility Instruments Incorporate Patient and Public Views Into Their Descriptive Systems?

Authors:  Katherine J Stevens
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Assessing capability in economic evaluation: a life course approach?

Authors:  Joanna Coast
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2019-08

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

4.  Exploration of the content validity and feasibility of the EQ-5D-3L, ICECAP-O and ASCOT in older adults.

Authors:  Karen M van Leeuwen; Aaltje P D Jansen; Maaike E Muntinga; Judith E Bosmans; Marjan J Westerman; Maurits W van Tulder; Henriette E van der Horst
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-05-15       Impact factor: 2.655

5.  Preference-based disease-specific health-related quality of life instrument for glaucoma: a mixed methods study protocol.

Authors:  Sergei Muratov; Dominik W Podbielski; Susan M Jack; Iqbal Ike K Ahmed; Levine A H Mitchell; Monika Baltaziak; Feng Xie
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-11-08       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  "When I saw walking I just kind of took it as wheeling": interpretations of mobility-related items in generic, preference-based health state instruments in the context of spinal cord injury.

Authors:  Yvonne Anne Michel; Lidia Engel; Kim Rand-Hendriksen; Liv Ariane Augestad; David Gt Whitehurst
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2016-11-28       Impact factor: 3.186

7.  Measuring the health-related quality of life of children with impaired mobility: examining correlation and agreement between children and parent proxies.

Authors:  Nathan Bray; Jane Noyes; Nigel Harris; Rhiannon Tudor Edwards
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2017-08-10

8.  A Systematic Review of the Use and Quality of Qualitative Methods in Concept Elicitation for Measures with Children and Young People.

Authors:  Samantha Husbands; Paul Mark Mitchell; Joanna Coast
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 3.883

9.  The psychometric performance of generic preference-based measures for patients with pressure ulcers.

Authors:  Simon Palfreyman; Brendan Mulhern
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2015-08-01       Impact factor: 3.186

10.  Healthy eating and physical activity among breastfeeding women: the role of misinformation.

Authors:  Kailey Snyder; Aja Kneip Pelster; Danae Dinkel
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2020-08-17       Impact factor: 3.007

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.