The time trade-off method: Results from a general population study

Health Economics

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 141-154

  Dolan, Paul ^a   Gudex, Claire ^b   Kind, Paul ^b   Williams, Alan ^b  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Health status measurement; Time trade off; Utility

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; SEX DIFFERENCE; UNITED KINGDOM;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ENGLAND; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; SEX FACTORS; STATE MEDICINE;

EID: 0030102792     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199603)5:2<141::AID-HEC189>3.0.CO;2-N     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Torrance, G. W. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal, Journal of Health Economics 1986; 5: 1-30.
2. Brooks, R. G. Health status and quality of life measurement: issues and developments, Swedish Institute of Health Economics, IHE, Lund, 1991.
3. Buckingham, K. and Drummond, M. A theoretical and empirical classification of health valuation techniques, HESG Conference, Strathclyde, 1993.
4. Richardson, J. Cost-utility analysis: what should be measured?, Social Science and Medicine 1994; 39(1): 7-21.
5. Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P. and Williams, A., Valuing health states: a comparison of methods, HESG Conference, Strathclyde, 1993.
6. O'Brien, B. J. and Drummond, M. F. Statistical versus quantitative significance in the socioeconomic evaluation of medicines, PharmacoEconomics 1994; 5(5): 389-398.
7. Gudex, C. Time trade-off user manual: Props and self-completion method, Centre for Health Economics Occasional Paper Series, 1994.
8. Eyman, R. K. The effect of sophistication on ratio and discriminative scales, American Journal of Psychology 1967; 80: 520-540.
9. Poulton, E. C. Bias in quantifying judgements, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hove, 1989.
10. Patrick, D. L., Starks, H. E., Cain, K. C., Uhlmann, R. F. and Pearlman, R. A. Measuring preferences for health states worse than death, Medical Decision Making 1994; 14: 9-18.
11. Rosser, R. and Kind, P. A scale of valuations of states of illness: is there a social consensus? International Journal of Epidemiology 1978; 7: 347-358.
12. Read, J. L., Quinn, R. J., Berwick, D. M., Fineberg, H. V. and Weinstein, M. C. Preferences for health outcomes: comparison of assessment methods, Medical Decision Making 1984; 4: 315-329.
13. Sutherland, H. J., Llewellyn-Thomas, H., Boyd, N. F. and Till, J. E. Attitude toward quality of survival: the concept of maximal endurable time, Medical Decision Making 1982; 2: 299-309.
14. Sackett, D. L. and Torrance, G. W. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public, Journal of Chronic Diseases 1978; 31: 697-704.