Use of visual analog scales in economic evaluation

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 293-302

  Brazier, John ^a   Green, Colin ^b   McCabe, Christopher ^a   Stevens, Katherine ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Economic evaluation; JEL classification: I10; Rating scales; Visual analog scales

Indexed keywords

ANXIETY; CALIBRATION; DEPRESSION; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PAIN ASSESSMENT; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; RATING SCALE; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SELF CARE; TIME; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

EID: 0038003860     PISSN: 14737167     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/14737167.3.3.293     Document Type: Review

References (52)

1. Frobag D, Kane R. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences-II: scaling methods. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 42, 459-471 (1989).
2. McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaire. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (1987,1996).
3. Patrick D, Bush J, Chen M. Methods for measuring levels of well-being for a health status index. Health Serv. Res. 8, 228-245 (1973).
4. Kaplan R, Anderson J. A general health policy model: update and application. Health Serv. Res. 23, 203-235 (1988).
5. Torrance G, Furlong W, Feeny D, Boyle M. Multiattribute preference functions. Health Utilities Index. PharmacoEconomics 7, 503-520 (1995).
6. Sintonen H. The 15D measure of HRQoL: reliability, validity and the sensitivity of its health state descriptive system. Monash University and The University of Melbourne, Australia (1994).
7. Brooks R. Euroqol: the current state of play. Health Policy 37, 53-72 (1996).
8. Torrance G. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J. Health Econom. 5, 1-30 (1986).
9. MVH group. The measurement and valuation of health: first report on the main survey Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK (1994).
10. Kaplan R. Bush J, Berry C. Health status index: category rating versus magnitude estimation for measuring levels of well-being. Med. Care 17, 501-525 (1979).
11. Kaplan R, Feeny D, Revicki D. Methods for assessing relative importance in preference based outcome measures. Qual. Life Res. 2, 467-475 (1993).
12. Revicki D. Relationship between health utility and psychometric health status measures. Med. Care. 30, MS274-MS282 (1992).
13. Nord E. Methods for quality adjustment of life years. Soc. Sci. Med. 34, 559-569 (1992).
14. Robinson A, Loomes G, Jones-Lee M. Visual analog scales, standard gambles and relative risk aversion. Med. Decis. Making 21, 17-27 (2001).
15. Richardson J. Cost utility analysis: what should be measured? Soc. Sci. Med. 39, 7-21 (1994).
16. Nord E. The validity of a visual analog scale in determining social utility weights for health states. Int. J. Health Plan. Manag. 6, 234-242 (1991).
17. Morris J. Durand M. Category Rating Methods: numerical and verbal scales - results from a pilot study. Mimeograph, Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK (1989).
18. Dyer J, Sarin R. Relative risk aversion. Management Science 28, 875-886 (1982).
19. Torrance G, Feeny D, Furlong W, Barr R, Zhang Y, Wang Q. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med. Care 34, 702-722 (1996).
20. Broome J. Qalys. J. pub. Economics 50, 149-167 (1993).
21. Stevens S, Galanter E. Ratio scales for a dozen perceptual continual. J. Exp. Psychol. 54, 377 (1957).
22. Parducci A. Category rating and the relational character of judgement. In: Category Rating and the Relational Character of Judgement. Geissler HG. (Ed.). VEB Deutcher Verlag Der Wissen-Schaften, Berlin, Germany (1983).
23. Torrance G, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analog Scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med. Decis. Making 329-334 (2001).
24. Von Neumann J, Morganstern O. Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ, USA (1944).
25. Torrance G. Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Economic Plan. Sci. 10, 129-136 (1976).
26. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J. Health Econom. 15, 209-231 (1996a).
27. Green C, Brazier J, Deverill M. A review of health state valuation techniques. PharmacoEconomics 17, 151 (2000).
28. Bakker C, Rutten M, van Doorslaer E, Bennett K, van der Linden S. Feasibility of utility assessment by rating scale and standard gamble in patients with ankylosing spondilitis or fibromyalgia. J. Rheumatol. 21, 269-274 (1994).
29. Read J, Quinn R, Berwick D, Weinstein M. Preferences for health outcomes: comparison of assessment methods. Med. Decis. Making 4, 315-329 (1984).
30. Bombadier C, Wolfson A, Sinclair A, McGreer A. Comparison of three measurement methodologies in the evaluation of functional status index. In: Comparison of Three measurement Methodologies in the Evaluation of Functional Status Index. Deber R, Thompson G (Eds). University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (1982).
31. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland H, Tibshirani R, Ciampi A, Till J, Boyd N. Describing health states: methodological issues in obtaining values for health states. Med. Care 22, 543-552 (1984).
32. Bass E, Steinberg E, Pitt HA et al. Comparison of the rating scale and the Standard Gamble in measuring patient preferences for outcomes of Gallstone Disease. Med. Decis. Making 14, 307-314 (1994).
33. Hornberger J, Redelmeier D, Petersen J. Variability among methods to assess patients' well-being and consequent effect on a cost-effectiveness analysis. J. Clin. Epidemiology 45, 505-512 (1992).
34. MVH group. The measurement and valuation of health: final report on the modelling of valuation tariffs. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK (1995).
35. Dolan P, Sutton M. Mapping visual analog scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values. Soc. Sci. Med. 44, 1519-1530 (1997).
36. Drummond M, Davies L. Economic analysis alongside clinical trials: revisiting the methodological issues. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Healthcare 7, 561-573 (1991).
37. Loomes G. Disparities between health state measures: is there a rational explanation? In: Disparities Between Health State Measures: is there a rational explanation? Gerrard W (Ed.). Routledge, London, UK (1993).
38. Stiggelbout A, Eijkemans M, Kiebert G, Kievit J, Leer J, 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. Healthcare 12, 291-298 (1996).
39. Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. An experimental test of a theoretical foundation for rating-scale valuations. Med. Decis. Making 17, 208-216 (1997).
40. Currim I, Sarin R. A comparative evaluation of multiattribute consumer preference models. Man. Sci. 30, 543-561 (1984).
41. Gafni A. The standard gamble method: what is being measured and how it is interpreted. Health Serv. Res. 29, 207-224 (1994).
42. Sackett D, Torrance G. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J. Chron. Dis. 31, 697-704 (1978).
43. Sutherland H, Llewellyn T, Boyd D, Till J. Attitudes towards quality of survival: the concept of maximum endurable time. Med. Decis. Making 2, 299-309 (1982).
44. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 47, 263-291 (1979).
45. Torrance G, Boyle M, Horwood S. Application of multiattribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Operations Research 30, 1043 (1982).
46. Stiggelbout A, Kiebert G, Kievit J, Leer J, Stoter G, de Haes J. Utility assessment in cancer patients: adjustment of time tradeoff scores for the utility of life years and comparison with standard gamble scores. Med. Decis. Making 14, 82-90 (1994).
47. Brazier J, Harper R, Thomas K, Jones N, Underwood T. Deriving a preference based single index measure from the SF-36. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 51, 1115-1129 (1998).
48. Euroqol group. Euroqol - a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality-of-life. Health Policy 16, 199-208 (1990).
49. Rutten van Molken M, Bakker C, van Doorslaer E. Methodological issues of patient utility measurement. Experience from two clinical trials. Med. Care 33, 922-937 (1995).
50. Bakker C, Rutten M, van Santen Hoeufft M. Patient utilities in fybromyalgia and the association with other outcome measures. J. Rheumatol. 22, 1536-1543 (1995).
51. Robinson A, Dolan P, Williams A. Valuing health states using VAS and TTO: what lies behind the numbers? Soc. Sci. Med. 45, 1289-1297 (1997)
52. Van Bussbach J De validiteit van QALY's [The validity of QALY's]. (Unpublished PhD thesis, 1994).