The relationship between health-state utilities and the SF-12 in a general population

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 128-140

  Lundberg, Lena ^a,e   Johannesson, Magnus ^b   Isacson, Dag G L ^a,c   Borgquist, Lars ^d  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b STOCKHOLM SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (Sweden)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TROMSØ   (Norway)

^d LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^e UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Health status; Health related; Rating scale; SF 12; Time tradeoff

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; FEMALE; HEALTH; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; POPULATION; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RATING SCALE;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; MENTAL HEALTH; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ROLE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SWEDEN; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 0033029307     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900203     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Jönsson B. Quality of life - economic aspects. Scand J Prim Health Care. 1990;1 suppl:93-6.
2. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: New England Medical Center, The Health Institute, 1993.
3. Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Valuation of Health Care Programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Medical Publications, 1997.
4. Torrance GW. Measurements of health status utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ. 1986;5:1-30.
5. Revicki DA. Relationship between health utility and psychometric health status measures. Med Care 1992;30 (5 suppl): 274-82.
6. Revicki DA, Kaplan RM. Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life. Quality Life Res. 1993;2:477-87.
7. Fryback DG, Lawrence WF, Martin PA, Klein R, Klein BEK. Predicting quality of well-being scores from the SF-36. Med Decis Making 1997;17:1-9.
8. Blumenschein K, Johannesson M. Relationship between quality of life instruments, health state utilities and willingness to pay in patients with asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1998;80:189-94.
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. Bult JR, Bosch JL, Hunink MGM. Heterogeneity in the relationship between the standard-gamble utility measure and health-status dimensions. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:226-33.
11. Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R, et al. The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:89-102.
12. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey. Discussion paper 138, University of York: Centre for Health Economics, York, U.K., 1995.
13. Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary test of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220-33.
14. Ware JE, Gandek B, Aaronson N, et al. Testing the SF-12 summary health measures in nine countries: results from the IQOLA project. Quality Life Res. 1997;6:739.
15. Ware JE, Sherbourne D. The MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36). 1. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473-83.
16. Greene WH. Econometric Analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan, 1993.
17. Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinstein MC. Preference for health outcomes: comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making. 1984;4:315-29.
18. Hornberger JC, Redelmeier DA, Peterson J. Variability among methods to assess patients' well-being and consequent effect on a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:505-12.
19. Torrance GW. Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Economic Planning Sci. 1976;10:129-36.
20. Stiggelbout A, Eijkemans M, Kiebert G, Kievit J, Leer J-W, De Haes H. The 'utility' of the visual analog scale in medical decision making and technology assessment: is it an alternative to the time trade-off? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1996;12:291-8.
21. Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R, et al. Health assessment by SF-36, quality of well-being index and time trade-offs: predicting one measure from another (abstr). Med Decis Making. 1992;12:348.
22. Tsevat J, Solzan JG, Tolan KK, et al. Health status and utilities of HIV+ and primary care patients (abstr). Clin Res. 1992;40: 569 A.
23. Paltiel AD, Scharfstein JA, Seage IGR, et al. A Monte Carlo simulation of advanced HIV disease: application to CMV prevention. Med Decis Making. 1998;18(suppl):93-105.
24. Johannesson M, Pliskin JS, Weinstein MC. A note on QALYs, time trade-off, and discounting. Med Decis Making. 1994;14: 188-93.
25. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J Health Econ. 1996;15:209-31.
26. Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. An experimental test of a theoretical foundation for rating scale valuations. Med Decis Making. 1997;17:208-16.
27. Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Barr RD, Zhang Y, Wang Q. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system: health utilities index Mark 2. Med Care. 1996;34:702-22.