Literature DB >> 8078039

Impact of diagnosis on utilities assigned to states of illness.

R Rabin1, R M Rosser, C Butler.   

Abstract

This paper addresses some of the fundamental issues surrounding the measurement of quality of life in relation to health care and highlights the need for continuous and careful review. Healthy volunteers were used to study the effect of diagnosis on the utilities placed on three dimensions of health-related quality of life encompassing 17 states of disability, distress, and discomfort including pain. The standard gamble (SG) was used to elicit values for appropriate levels of each dimension for selected diagnostic conditions. It was shown that clinical diagnosis affects the utilities that people assign to different states of ill-health. Mental conditions were consistently assigned lower utilities with subjects attributing their decisions to the social unacceptability and intractability associated with these conditions. These findings suggest that the comprehensiveness of the descriptive system for health indicators and profiles is important and should be kept under review. Furthermore, these data have implications for the role of the Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) estimates which assume that utility is uniform across various conditions. Finally, the study may have implications for mental health services if other population samples were to accord such high priority to the relief of mental conditions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8078039      PMCID: PMC1294046          DOI: 10.1177/014107689308600806

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J R Soc Med        ISSN: 0141-0768            Impact factor:   18.000


  12 in total

Review 1.  The use of QALYs in health care decision making.

Authors:  G Loomes; L McKenzie
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 2.  Audit and the quality of clinical care.

Authors:  H B Devlin
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 1.891

3.  The role of health economics.

Authors:  R Klein
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1989-07-29

4.  Assumptions of the QALY procedure.

Authors:  R A Carr-Hill
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 4.634

5.  QALYfying the value of life.

Authors:  J Harris
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 2.903

6.  Evidence on inequality in health from a national survey.

Authors:  M Blaxter
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1987-07-04       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public.

Authors:  D L Sackett; G W Torrance
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1978

8.  A quantitative approach to perceived health status: a validation study.

Authors:  S M Hunt; S P McKenna; J McEwen; E M Backett; J Williams; E Papp
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1980-12       Impact factor: 3.710

9.  The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure.

Authors:  M Bergner; R A Bobbitt; W B Carter; B S Gilson
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1981-08       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  A scale of valuations of states of illness: is there a social consensus?

Authors:  R Rosser; P Kind
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  1978-12       Impact factor: 7.196

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Using the effect size to model change in preference values from descriptive health status.

Authors:  Kristy Sanderson; Gavin Andrews; Justine Corry; Helen Lapsley
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  How is the most severe health state being valued by the general population?

Authors:  Mihir Gandhi; Julian Thumboo; Hwee-Lin Wee; Nan Luo; Yin-Bun Cheung
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2014-10-25       Impact factor: 3.186

Review 4.  Health state descriptions to elicit stroke values: do they reflect patient experience of stroke?

Authors:  Joanne Gray; Mabel L S Lie; Madeleine J Murtagh; Gary A Ford; Peter McMeekin; Richard G Thomson
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-11-21       Impact factor: 2.655

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.