The cost-effectiveness of preference-based treatment allocation: The case of hysterectomy versus endometrial resection in the treatment of menorrhagia

Health Economics

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 129-142

  Sculpher, Mark ^a,b  

^a BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Benefit measurement; Economic evaluation; Patient preferences; QALYs; Sub group analysis

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL HYSTERECTOMY; ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; ENDOMETRIUM ABLATION; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; MENORRHAGIA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TREATMENT PLANNING;

CATHETER ABLATION; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; HYSTERECTOMY; MENORRHAGIA; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS;

EID: 0031977320     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199803)7:2<129::AID-HEC332>3.0.CO;2-9     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Mark, D.B., Hlatky, M.A., Califf, R.M., et al. Cost effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy with tissue plasminogen activator as compared with streptokinase for acute myocardial infarction. New England Journal of Medicine 1995; 332: 1418-1424.
2. Torrance, G.W. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal - a review. Journal of Health Economics 1986; 5: 1-30.
3. Nease, R.F. and Owens, D.K. A method of estimating the cost-effectiveness of incorporating patient preferences into practice guidelines. Medical Decision Making 1994; 14: 382-392.
4. Charles, C., Gafni, A. and Whelan, T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Social Science and Medicine 1997; 44: 681-692.
5. Coulter, A. Partnerships with patients: the pros and cons of shared clinical decision-making. Journal of Health Services Research Policy 1997; 2: 112-120.
6. Hope, T. Evidence-Based Patient Choice. London: King's Fund, 1996.
7. Strull, W.M., Lo, B. and Charles, G. Do patients want to participate in medical decision making? Journal of the American Medical Association 1984; 252: 2990-2994.
8. Cassileth, B.R., Zupkis, R.V., Sutton-Smith, K., et al. Information and participation preferences among cancer patients. Annals of Internal Medicine 1980; 92: 832-836.
9. Gath, D., Osborn, M., Bungay, G., et al. Psychiatric disorder and gynaecological symptoms in middle aged women: a community survey. British Medical Journal 1987; 294: 213-218.
10. Effective Health Care. The Management of Menorrhagia. Effective Health Care Bulletin No. 9. Leeds: Nuffield Institute for Health, University of Leeds, 1995.
11. Coulter, A., Kelland, J., Peto, V., et al. Treating menorrhagia in primary care. An overview of drug trials and a survey of prescribing practice. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1995; 11: 456-471.
12. Bradlow, J., Coulter, A. and Brooks, P. Patterns of Referral, Oxford. Oxford: Health Services Research Unit, 1992.
13. Vessey, M.P., Villard-Mackintosh, L., McPherson, K., et al. The epidemiology of hysterectomy: findings in a large cohort study. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1992; 99: 402-407.
14. Overton, C., Hargreaves, J. and Maresh, M. A national survey of the complications of endometrial destruction for menstrual disorders: the MISTLETOE study. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1997; 104: 1351-1359.
15. Dwyer, N., Hutton, J. and Stirrat, G. Randomised controlled trial comparing endometrial resection with abdominal hysterectomy for the surgical treatment of menorrhagia. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1993; 100: 237-43.
16. Gannon, M.J., Holt, E.M., Fairbank, L, et al. A randomised trial comparing endometrial resection and abdominal hysterectomy for the treatment of menorrhagia. British Medical Journal 1991; 303: 1362-1364.
17. Pinion, S.B., Parkin, D.E., Abramovich, D.R., et al. Randomised trial of hysterectomy, endometrial laser ablation and transcervical endometrial resection for dysfunctional uterine bleeding. British Medical Journal 1994; 309: 979-83.
18. Sculpher, M.J., Dwyer, N., Byford, S., et al. Randomised trial comparing hysterectomy and transcervical endometrial resection: effect on health-related quality of life and costs two years after surgery. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1996; 103: 142-149.
19. Sculpher, M.J. A cost-utility analysis of abdominal hysterectomy versus transcervical endometrial resection for the surgical treatment of menorrhagia. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Forthcoming;
20. Brown, J. and Sculpher, M.J. Economics of screening programmes to prevent cervical cancer. Contemporary Reviews in Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1993; 5: 221-229.
21. Luoto, R., Kaprio, J. and Uutela, A. Age at natural menopause and sociodemographic status in Finland. American Journal of Epidemiology 1994; 139: 64-76.
22. Johannesson, M. and O'Conor, R.M. Cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective. Health Policy 1997; 39: 241-253.
23. Laupacis, A., Feeny, D., Detsky, A.S., et al. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1992; 146: 473-481.
24. OECD. OECD Health Data Version 1.5. Paris: OECD, 1993.
25. Sculpher, M.J. An economic evaluation of alternative surgical treatments for menorrhagia: transcervical resection of the endometrium versus abdominal hysterectomy. Final Report to the Department of Health. Uxbridge: HERG, Brunel University, 1997.
26. Cantor, S.B. Cost-effectiveness analysis, extended dominance, and ethics: a quantitative assessment. Medical Decision Making 1994; 14: 259-265.
27. Brooks, R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37: 53-72.
28. Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Boyle, M., et al. Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Utilities Index. PharmacoEconomics 1995; 7: 490-502.
29. Street, R.L. and Voigt, B. Patient participation in deciding breast cancer treatment and subsequent quality of life. Medical Decision Making 1997; 17: 298-306.
30. Barry, M.J., Fowler, F.J., Mulley, A.G., et al. Patient reactions to a program designed to facilitate patient participation in treatment decisions for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Medical Care 1995; 33: 771-782.
31. Hlatky, M.A. Patient preferences and clinical guidelines. Journal of the American Medical Association 1995; 273: 1219-1220.
32. Nease, R.F., Tsai, R., Hynes, L.M., et al. Automated utility assessment of global health. Quality of Life Research 1996; 5: 175-182.
33. Shepperd, S., Coulter, A. and Farmer, A. Using interactive videos in general practice to inform patients about treatment choices: a pilot study. Family Practice 1995; 12: 443-447.
34. Pliskin, J.S., Shepard, D.S. and Weinstein, M.C. Utility functions for life years and health status. Operations Research 1980; 28: 206-224.
35. Loomes, G. and McKenzie, L. The use of QALYs in health care decision making. Social Science and Medicine 1989; 28: 299-308.
36. Johannesson, M. QALYs, HYEs and individual preferences-a graphical illustration. Social Science and Medicine 1994; 39: 1623-1632.
37. Gafni, A. and Birch, S. Preferences for outcomes in economic evaluation: an economic approach to addressing economic problems. Social Science and Medicine 1995; 40: 767-776.
38. Ryan, M. and Hughes, M. Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. Health Economics 1997; 6: 261-273.