Exploring health preferences in sociodemographic and health related groups through the paired comparison of the items of the Nottingham Health Profile

Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

Volumn 54, Issue 7, 2000, Pages 537-543

  Prieto, Luis ^a,b   Alonso, Jordi ^a  

^a INST MUNIC D INVESTIGACIO MEDICA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITAT RAMON LLULL   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGE; ARTICLE; BIOSTATISTICS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CORRELATION FUNCTION; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DEMOGRAPHY; GENDER; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; QUALITY OF LIFE; SOCIAL ASPECT; SOCIAL CLASS;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; DATA COLLECTION; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MALE; MATCHED-PAIR ANALYSIS; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SEX; SOCIAL CLASS; SPAIN;

EID: 0034091516     PISSN: 0143005X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jech.54.7.537     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring healthstate preferences-IV. Progress and a research agenda. J Clin Epidemiol 1989;42:675-85.
2. Stiggelbout AM, Kiebert GM, Kievit J, et al. The "utility" of the Time Trade-Off method in cancer patients: feasibility and proportional trade-off. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:1207-14.
3. Kapp MB. Enforcing patient preferences. Linking payment for medical care to informed consent. JAMA 1989;261: 1935-49.
4. Sutherland HJ. Assessing patients' preferences. Med Decis Making 1995;15:286-7.
5. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econom 1986;5:1-30.
6. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring healthstate preferences-I. Measurement strategies. J Clin Epidemiol 1989;42:345-54.
7. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring healthstate preferences-II. Scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol 1989;42:459-71.
8. Patrick DL, Erickson P. Health status and health policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993.
9. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R, et al. The measurement of patients' values in medicine. Med Decis Making 1982;2:449-62.
10. Kievert GM, Stiggelbout AM, Leer JH, et al. Test-retest reliablities of two treatment-preference instruments in measuring utilities. Med Decis Making 1993;13:133-40.
11. Katz JN, Phillips CB, Fossel AH, et al. Stability and responsiveness of utility measures. Med Care 1994;32:183-8.
12. Danis M, Garrett J, Harris R, et al. Stability of choices about life-sustaining treatments. Ann Intern Med 1994;120:567-73.
13. Kaplan RM, Bush JW, Berry CC. Health status index: category rating versus magnitude estimation for measuring levels of well-being. Med Care 1979;17:501-25.
14. Leighton Read J, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, et al. Preferences for health outcomes. Comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making 1984;4:315-29.
15. Revicki DA. Relationship between health utility and psychometric health status measures. Med Care 1992;30:MS274-82.
16. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981;211:453-8.
17. Kahneman D, Tversky A. The psychology of preferences. Sci Am 1982;246:160-73.
18. Llewellvn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R, et al. Describing health states. Methodologie issues in obtaining values for health states. Med Care 1984;22:543-52.
19. Guyatt GH, Cook DJ. Health status, quality of life, and the individual. JAMA 1994;272:630-1.
20. Veit CT, Rose BJ, Ware JE. Effects of physical and mental health on health-state preferences. Med Care 1982;20:386-401.
21. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring healthstate preferences-III. Population and context effects. J Clin Epidemiol 1989;42:585-92.
22. Sackett DL, Torrance GW. The utility of different health states as perceived by general public. J Chron Dis 1978;31: 697-704.
23. Worsley A. Lay person's evaluation of health: an exploratory study of an Australian population. J Epidemiol Community Health 1990;44:7-11.
24. Bucquet D, Condon S, Ritchie K. The French version of the Nottingham Health Profile. A comparison of items weights with those of the source version. Soc Sci Med 1990;30:829-35.
25. Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J, et al. A quantitative approach to perceived health status: a validation study. J Epidemiol Community Health 1980;34:281-6.
26. Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J, et al. The Nottingham Health Profile: subjective health status and medical consultations. Soc Sci Med 1981;15A:221-9.
27. Hunt SM, McEwen J, McKenna SP. Measuring health status: a new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists. J R Coll Gen Pract 1985;35:185-8.
28. Dolan P. The effect of experience of illness on health state valuations. J Clin Epidemiol 1996;49:551-64.
29. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Thiel EC. Do patients' evaluations of a future health state change when thev actually enter that state? Med Care 1993;31:1002-12.
30. McQuellon RP, Muss HB, Hoffman SL, et al. Patient preferences for treatment of metastatic breast cancer: a study of women with early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:858-68.
31. Dalen H. Williams A, Gudex C. Lay people's evaluations of health: are there variations between different subgroups?. J Epidemiol Community Health 1994;48:248-53.
32. Badia X, Fernández E, Segura A. Influence of sociodemographic and health status variables on evaluation of health states in a Spanish population. Eur J Public Health 1995;5:87-93.
33. Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
34. Alonso J, Anto JM, Moreno C. Spanish version of the Nottingham Health Profile: translation and preliminary validity. Am J Public Health 1990;80:704-8.
35. Alonso J, Prieto L, Antó JM. The Spanish version of the Nottingham Health Profile: a review of adaptation and instrument characteristics. Qual Life Res 1994;3:385-93.
36. McKenna SP, Hunt SM, McEwen J. Weighting the seriousness of perceived health using Thurstone's method of paired comparisons. Int J Epidemiol 1981;10:93-7.
37. Hadorn DC, Hays RD, Uebersax J, et al. Improving task comprehension in the measurement of health state preferences. A trial of informational cartoon figures and a paired comparison task. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45:233-43.
38. Hunt SM, Wicklund I. Crosscultural variation in the weighting of health statements: a comparison of English and Swedish valuations. Health Policy 1987;8: 227-35.
39. Hunt SM, Alonso J, Bucquet D, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation of health measures. Health Policy 1991;19:33-1.
40. Prieto L, Alonso J, Viladrich MC, et al. Scaling the Spanish version of the Nottingham Health Profile: evidence of limited value of item weights. J Clin Epidemiol 1996;49:31-8.
41. Domingo A, Marcos J. Propuesta de un indicador de clase social basado en la ocupación (Proposal of a social class indicator based on the occupation). Gac Sanit 1989;3:320-6.
42. Alonso J, Pérez P, Sáez M, et al. Validez de la ocupación como indicador de la clase social según la clasificación del British Registrar General (Validity of occupation as an indicator of social class, according to the British Registrar's General classification). Gac Sanit 1997;11:205-13.
43. Grupo de Trabajo de la Sociedad Espanola de Epidemiologia. La medición de la clase social en ciencias de la salud. Barcelona: SG Editores, 1995.
44. Kind P. A comparison of two models for scaling health indicators. Int J Epidemiol 1982;11:271-5.
45. Jenkinson C. Why are we weighting? A critical examination of the use of item weights in a health status measure. Soc Sci Med 1991;32:1413-16.
46. Torgerson WS. Theory and methods of scaling. New York, NY: John Wiley, 1958.
47. Schwartz S, Richardson J, Glasziou PP. Quality-adjusted life years: origins, measurements, applications, objections. Aust J Public Health 1993;17:272-8.
48. Boyle MH, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. Reliability of the Health Utility Index-Mark III used in the 1991 cycle 6 Canadian General Social Survey Health Questionnaire. Qual Life Res 1995;4:249-57.
49. Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, et al. Multiattribute Utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utility Index Mark 2. Med Care 1996;34:702-22.
50. Burrows C, Brown K. QALYs for resource allocation: probably not and certainly not now. Aust J Public Health 1993; 17:278-86.
51. Smith R, Dobson M. Measuring utility values for QALYs: two methodological issues. Health Econ 1993;2:349-55.
52. European Group for Quality of Life and Health Measurement. European guide to the Nottingham Health Profile. Richmond: Brookwood Medical Publications, 1993.