Literature DB >> 8161981

Methods for assessing relative importance in preference based outcome measures.

R M Kaplan1, D Feeny, D A Revicki.   

Abstract

This paper reviews issues relevant to preference assessment for utility based measures of health-related quality of life. Cost/utility studies require a common measurement of health outcome, such as the quality adjusted life year (QALY). A key element in the QALY methodology is the measure of preference that estimates subjective health quality. Economists and psychologists differ on their preferred approach to preference measurement. Economists rely on utility assessment methods that formally consider economic trades. These methods include the standard gamble, time-trade off and person trade-off. However, some evidence suggests that many of the assumptions that underlie economic measurements of choice are open to challenge because human information processors do poorly at integrating complex probability information when making decisions that involve risk. Further, economic analysis assumes that choices accurately correspond to the way rational humans use information. Psychology experiments suggest that methods commonly used for economic analysis do not represent the underlying true preference continuum and some evidence supports the use of simple rating scales. More recent research by economists attempts integrated cognitive models, while contemporary research by psychologists considers economic models of choice. The review also suggests that difference in preference between different social groups tends to be small.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8161981     DOI: 10.1007/bf00422221

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  25 in total

Review 1.  Methodology for measuring health-state preferences--IV: Progress and a research agenda.

Authors:  D G Froberg; R L Kane
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 2.  Assessing patients' utilities. Can the ends justify the means?

Authors:  A G Mulley
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  The validity of a visual analogue scale in determining social utility weights for health states.

Authors:  E Nord
Journal:  Int J Health Plann Manage       Date:  1991 Jul-Sep

4.  The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.

Authors:  J E Ware; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Methods for measuring levels of well-being for a health status index.

Authors:  D L Patrick; J W Bush; M M Chen
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1973       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 6.  A metric for the social consensus.

Authors:  S S Stevens
Journal:  Science       Date:  1966-02-04       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  Speech and survival: tradeoffs between quality and quantity of life in laryngeal cancer.

Authors:  B J McNeil; R Weichselbaum; S G Pauker
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1981-10-22       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 8.  Measuring health-related quality of life.

Authors:  G H Guyatt; D H Feeny; D L Patrick
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1993-04-15       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  A health status questionnaire using 30 items from the Medical Outcomes Study. Preliminary validation in persons with early HIV infection.

Authors:  A W Wu; H R Rubin; W C Mathews; J E Ware; L T Brysk; W D Hardy; S A Bozzette; S A Spector; D D Richman
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Weights for scoring the quality of well-being instrument among rheumatoid arthritics. A comparison to general population weights.

Authors:  D J Balaban; P C Sagi; N I Goldfarb; S Nettler
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1986-11       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  30 in total

1.  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

2.  Feasibility, validity and test-retest reliability of scaling methods for health states: the visual analogue scale and the time trade-off.

Authors:  X Badia; S Monserrat; M Roset; M Herdman
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 3.  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

4.  Valuation of EuroQOL (EQ-5D) health states in an adult US sample.

Authors:  J A Johnson; S J Coons; A Ergo; G Szava-Kovats
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  The case for domains of function in quality of life assessment.

Authors:  Michelle J Naughton; Sally A Shumaker
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  A strategy for collecting pharmacoeconomic data during phase II/III clinical trials.

Authors:  J Mauskopf; K Schulman; L Bell; H Glick
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 7.  Multi-attribute preference functions. Health Utilities Index.

Authors:  G W Torrance; W Furlong; D Feeny; M Boyle
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 8.  Measuring the effect of cancer on health-related quality of life.

Authors:  D Osoba
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Vision and quality-of-life.

Authors:  G C Brown
Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc       Date:  1999

10.  US and UK versions of the EQ-5D preference weights: does choice of preference weights make a difference?

Authors:  I-Chan Huang; Richard J Willke; Mark J Atkinson; William R Lenderking; Constantine Frangakis; Albert W Wu
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-04-06       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.