Literature DB >> 2723695

Methodology for measuring health-state preferences--I: Measurement strategies.

D G Froberg1, R L Kane.   

Abstract

Values play a critical part in decision making at both the individual and policy levels. Numerous methodologies for determining the preferences of individuals and groups have been proposed, but agreement has not been reached regarding their scientific adequacy and feasibility. This is the first of a four-part series of papers that analyzes and critiques the state-of-the-art in measuring preferences, particularly the measurement of health-state preferences. In this first paper we discuss the selection of relevant attributes to comprise the health-state descriptions, and the relative merits of three measurement strategies: holistic, explicitly decomposed, and statistically inferred decomposed. The functional measurement approach, a statistically inferred decomposed strategy, is recommended because it simultaneously validates the process by which judges combine attributes, the scale values they assign to health states, and the interval property of the scale.

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2723695     DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(89)90039-5

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


  52 in total

1.  The use of the Tobit model for analyzing measures of health status.

Authors:  P C Austin; M Escobar; J A Kopec
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Reliability, validity and responsiveness of two multiattribute utility measures in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Authors:  K Stavem
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 3.  Benefit valuation in economic evaluation of cancer therapies. A systematic review of the published literature.

Authors:  J Brown; M Sculpher
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  Methods for incorporating patients' views in health care.

Authors:  Michel Wensing; Glyn Elwyn
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-04-19

5.  Studying patients' preferences in health care decision making. Health Services Research Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1992-09-15       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Time preference for health gains versus health losses.

Authors:  L D MacKeigan; L N Larson; J R Draugalis; J L Bootman; L R Burns
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Preference based outcome measures for economic evaluation of drug interventions: quality adjusted life years (QALYs) versus healthy years equivalents (HYEs).

Authors:  A Mehrez; A Gafni
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Neck pain patients' preference scores for their current health.

Authors:  Gabrielle van der Velde; Sheilah Hogg-Johnson; Ahmed M Bayoumi; Pierre Côté; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; Eric L Hurwitz; Murray Krahn
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-03-27       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Patient-reported health preferences of anticoagulant-related outcomes.

Authors:  Ye Wang; Feng Xie; Ming Chai Kong; Lai Heng Lee; Heng Joo Ng; Yu Ko
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 10.  Value-based medicine and ophthalmology: an appraisal of cost-utility analyses.

Authors:  Gary C Brown; Melissa M Brown; Sanjay Sharma; Heidi Brown; Lindsay Smithen; David B Leeser; George Beauchamp
Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc       Date:  2004
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.