Literature DB >> 2634630

Utilities and quality-adjusted life years.

G W Torrance, D Feeny.   

Abstract

Utilities and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) are reviewed, with particular focus on their use in technology assessment. This article provides a broad overview and perspective on these two techniques and their interrelationship, with reference to other sources for details of implementation. The historical development, assumptions, strengths/weaknesses, and applications of each are summarized. Utilities are specifically designed for individual decision-making under uncertainty, but, with additional assumptions, utilities can be aggregated across individuals to provide a group utility function. QALYs are designed to aggregate in a single summary measure the total health improvement for a group of individuals, capturing improvements from impacts on both quantity of life and quality of life--with quality of life broadly defined. Utilities can be used as the quality-adjustment weights for QALYs; they are particularly appropriate for that purpose, and this combination provides a powerful and highly useful variation on cost-effectiveness analysis known as cost-utility analysis.

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2634630     DOI: 10.1017/s0266462300008461

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care        ISSN: 0266-4623            Impact factor:   2.188


  164 in total

Review 1.  The cost-effectiveness of substance abuse treatment.

Authors:  P G Barnett
Journal:  Curr Psychiatry Rep       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 5.285

2.  Patient preferences and utilities for 'off-time' outcomes in the treatment of Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  C S Palmer; J K Schmier; E Snyder; B Scott
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Costs in Perspective: Understanding Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 4.  A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments.

Authors:  S J Coons; S Rao; D L Keininger; R D Hays
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  Willingness to pay and the valuation of programmes for the prevention and control of influenza.

Authors:  S Birch; A Gafni; B O'Brien
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 6.  Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques.

Authors:  C Green; J Brazier; M Deverill
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Bridging decision analytic modelling with a cross-sectional study. Application to Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  M J Nuijten
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  The reproducibility of ophthalmic utility values.

Authors:  G C Brown; M M Brown; S Sharma; G Beauchamp; H Hollands
Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc       Date:  2001

9.  Validity of the time trade-off and standard gamble methods of utility assessment in retinal patients.

Authors:  S Sharma; G C Brown; M M Brown; H Hollands; R Robins; G K Shah
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.638

Review 10.  A review of alternative approaches to healthcare resource allocation.

Authors:  S Petrou; J Wolstenholme
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.