Literature DB >> 2668450

Methodology for measuring health-state preferences--IV: Progress and a research agenda.

D G Froberg1, R L Kane.   

Abstract

Remaining questions relative to the measurement of health-state preferences are outlined and applications discussed. We recommend more widespread use of functional measurement to better understand preference structures. Further research should be conducted on the reliability and validity of preference values produced by different scaling methods, including careful examination of the content validity of health-state descriptions. Construct validation studies using the multitrait-multimethod matrix would be useful as well as comparisons of stated preferences with revealed preferences. Despite the many unanswered measurement questions, preference values are currently being used in decision making at both the individual and societal levels. Several global health status measures incorporate preference values, and preferences are increasingly being used in cost-effectiveness studies. If preferences are to be used effectively, research on their measurement must accelerate to keep pace with the urgency for application.

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2668450     DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(89)90011-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  11 in total

Review 1.  Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life.

Authors:  D A Revicki; R M Kaplan
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Glaucoma patients' assessment of their visual function and quality of life.

Authors:  H D Jampel
Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc       Date:  2001

3.  Quality-of-life assessment in osteoporosis: health-status and preference-based measures.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Cristina S Hammond
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Exploring health preferences in sociodemographic and health related groups through the paired comparison of the items of the Nottingham health profile.

Authors:  L Prieto; J Alonso
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 3.710

5.  Measuring preferences for schizophrenia outcomes with the time tradeoff method.

Authors:  Martha Shumway; Tandy L Chouljian; Cynthia L Battle
Journal:  J Behav Health Serv Res       Date:  2005 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 1.505

6.  Effect of order of administration of health-related quality of life interview instruments on responses.

Authors:  Ashley L Childs
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Depression and comorbid illness in elderly primary care patients: impact on multiple domains of health status and well-being.

Authors:  Polly Hitchcock Noël; John W Williams; Jürgen Unützer; Jason Worchel; Shuko Lee; John Cornell; Wayne Katon; Linda H Harpole; Enid Hunkeler
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.166

Review 8.  Methods for assessing relative importance in preference based outcome measures.

Authors:  R M Kaplan; D Feeny; D A Revicki
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Choices in oncology: factors that influence patients' treatment preference.

Authors:  G M Kiebert; A M Stiggelbout; J Kievit; J W Leer; C J van de Velde; H J de Haes
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Health economics and quality of life in cancer trials: report based on a UKCCCR workshop. United Kingdom Coordinating Committee on Cancer Research.

Authors:  R Fitzpatrick; L Davies
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.