Heterogeneity in the relationship between the standard-gamble utility measure and health-status dimensions

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 226-233

  Bult, Jan Roelf ^a,c,d   Bosch, Johanna L ^a,c   Hunink, Maria G M ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^c HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^d Monitor United States   (United States)

Author keywords

health status measure; health utility measure; heterogeneity; latent class analysis

Indexed keywords

ARTERY DISEASE; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MULTIPLE REGRESSION; SOCIAL INTERACTION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASES; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; QUESTIONNAIRES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 0030015450     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9601600306     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J. Health Econ. 1986;5:1-30.
2. Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, et al. Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;7: 490-502.
3. Revicki DA, Kaplan RM. Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res. 1993;2:477-87.
4. Revicki DA. Relationship between health utility and psychometric health status measures. Med Care. 1992;30(suppl): MS274-82.
5. Revicki DA, Weinstein M, ALderman M, et al. Health utility and health status outcomes of antihypertensive treatment. Washington, DC: Battelle Medical Technology Assessment and Policy Research Center, 1992
6. Tsevat J, Solan JG, Tolan KK, et al. Health status and utilities of HIV+ and primary care patients (abstr). Clin Res. 1992;40: 569A.
7. Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R, et al. Health assessment by SF-36, quality of well-being index and time trade-off; predicting one measure from another (abstr). Med Decis Making. 1992;12:348.
8. Fishburn PC. The Foundations of Expected Utility. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 1982.
9. Bosch JL, Hunink MGM. The relationship between descriptive and valuational quality-of-life measures in patients with intermittent claudication. Med Decis Making. 1996; 16:217-25.
10. DeSarbo WS, Cron WL. A maximum likelihood methodololgy for clusterwise linear regression. Psychometrika. 1988;54: 707-36.
11. DeSoete G, DeSarbo WS. A latent class probit model for analyzing pick any/n data. J Classification. 1991;8:45-63.
12. Dempster AP, Laird NM, Rubin PB. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM-algorithm. J R Statist Soc. 1977;B39:1-38.
13. Akaike H. A new look at statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. 1974;AC-19:716-23.
14. Bozdogan H. Determining the number of component clusters in standard multivariate normal mixture models using model-selection criterion. TR VIC/DOM/A83-1, Army Research Office, 1983.
15. Sclove SL. Application of model-selection criteria to some problems in multivariate analysis. Psychometricka 1987;52: 333-43.