Validity and feasibility of the use of condition-specific outcome measures in economic evaluation

Quality of Life Research

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 363-371

  Stolk, Elly A ^a   Busschbach, Jan J V ^a  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Erectile dysfunction; International Index of Erectile Function; Quality adjusted life years; Time tradeoff; Utilities

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERVIEW; MALE; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; POPULATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAMPLE; SCORING SYSTEM; STUDENT; TIME; VALIDATION PROCESS;

FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; IMPOTENCE; MALE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PILOT PROJECTS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; QUESTIONNAIRES; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE;

EID: 0037950631     PISSN: 09629343     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1023453405252     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Brazier J, Dixon S. The use of condition specific outcome measures in economical appraisal. Health Econom 1995; 4(4): 255-264.
2. Bennett K J, Torrance GW. Measuring health state preferences and utilities: Rating scale, time tradeoff, and standard gamble techniques. In: Spilker B (ed), Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials (ch. 27). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996.
3. Hall J, Gerard K, Salkeld G, Richardson J. A cost utility analysis of mammography screening in Australia. Social Sci Med 1992; 34(9): 993-1004.
4. Kennedy W, Reinharz D, Tessier G, et al. Cost utility of chemotherapy and best supportive care in non-small cell lung cancer. PharmacoEconomics 1995; 8(4): 316-323.
5. Chancellor JVM, Coyle D, Drummond MF. Constructing health state preference values from descriptive quality of life outcomes: Mission impossible? Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 159-168.
6. Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, et al. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care 1996; 34: 702-722.
7. Busschbach JJV, McDonnell J, Essink-Bot ML, Hout BAv. Estimating parametric relationships between health descriptions and health valuation with an application to the EuroQol EQ-5D. J Health Econom 1999; 18: 551-571.
8. Rosen RC, Riley A, Wagner G, et al. The International Index of erectile function (IIEF): A multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology 1997; 49: 822-830.
9. NIH Consensus Conference. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Impotence. J Amer Med Assoc 1993; 270: 83-90.
10. Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res 1972; 7(2): 118-133.
11. Torrance GW. Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Economic Plan Sci 1976; 10: 129-136.
12. Brooks R. EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37: 53-72.
13. Statistics Netherlands. Statistical Yearbook of the Netherlands 1997. Voorburg/Heerlen: Statistics Netherlands, 1997.
14. Goldstein I, Lue T, Padma-Nathan H, et al. Oral Sildenafil in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. New Engl J Med 1998; 338(20): 1397-1404.
15. Murray JL, Lopez AD (eds) (1996) The Global Burden of Disease. Summary. The Global Burden of Disease and Injury Series (pages). Cambridge: The Harvard school of Public Health (on behalf of the World Health Organisation and the World Bank), 1996.
16. Volk RJ, Cantor SB, Spann SJ, et al. Preferences of husbands and wives for prostate cancer screening. Arch Fam Med 1996; 6: 72-76.
17. Albertsen PC, Jr RFN, Potosky AL. Assessment of patient preferences among men with prostate cancer. J Urol 1998; 159(1): 158-163.
18. Fryback DG, Lawrence WF. Dollars may not buy as many QALYs as we think. A problem with defining quality of life adjustments. Med Decision Making 1997; 17: 276-284.
19. Gold M, Franks P, McCoy KI, Fryback DG. Toward consistency in cost-utility analyses using national measures to create condition specific values. Med Care 1998; 36(6): 778-792.
20. Bleichrodt H, Herrero C, Pinto JL. A proposal to solve the comparability problem in cost-utility analysis, forthcoming.
21. Stolk EA, Busschbach JJV. A comparison between the euroqol and the health utility index in patients treated for congenital anomalies. HEPAC 2001; 2: 54-59.
22. Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. An experimental test of a theoretical foundation for rating-scale valuations. Med Decision Making 1997b; 17(2): 208-216.
23. Tsevat J, Dawson NV, Wu AW, et al. Health values of hospitalized patients 80 years or older. J Amer Med Assoc 1998; 279(5): 371-375.