Feasibility and reliability of a mailed questionnaire to obtain visual analogue scale valuations for health states defined by the health utilities index mark 3

Medical Care

Volumn 42, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 13-18

  Raat, Hein ^a,c   Bonsel, Gouke J ^b   Hoogeveen, W Christina ^c   Essink Bot, Marie Louise ^a   Gemke, Reinoud J B J ^d   Krabbe, Paul F M ^e   Moll, Henric̈ttc A ^a   Van Suijlekom Smit, Lisette W A ^a   Verrips, Erik ^f  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c Public Health Service of the Rotterdam Region   (Netherlands)

^d VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^e RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^f TNO   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Children; Feasibility; Health utilities index mark 3 (HUI, HUI3); Health related quality of life; Mailed questionnaire; Preferences; Reliability; Visual analogue scale (VAS)

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CANADA; CHILD; CHILD WELFARE; CLASSIFICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; EVALUATION; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; FRANCE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MALE; NETHERLANDS; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PARENT; PEDIATRICS; POSTAL MAIL; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; REFERENCE VALUE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SEX RATIO; SOCIOECONOMICS; STANDARD; VALIDATION STUDY;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CANADA; CHILD; CHILD WELFARE; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; FRANCE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; MALE; NETHERLANDS; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PARENTS; PEDIATRICS; POSTAL SERVICE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REFERENCE VALUES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEX DISTRIBUTION; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS;

EID: 1242331431     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000102297.06535.e7     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Lohr KN. Health outcomes methodology symposium: summary and recommendations. Med Care. 2000;38(suppl):II194-208.
2. Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, et al. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3:1-164.
3. Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance GW, et al. Multiplicative multi-attribute utility function for the Health Utilities Index mark 3 (HUI3) system: a technical report. Hamilton: Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis McMaster University; 1998. CHEPA Working Paper 98-11.
4. Furlong WJ, Feeny DH, Torrance GW, et al. The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann Med. 2001;33:375-384.
5. Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Med Care. 2002;40:113-128.
6. Raynauld JP, Torrance GW, Band PA, et al. A prospective, randomized, pragmatic, health outcomes trial evaluating the incorporation of hylan G-F 20 into the treatment paradigm for patients with knee osteoarthritis (Part 1 of 2): clinical results. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2002;10:506-517.
7. Torrance GW, Raynauld JP, Walker V, et al. A prospective, randomized, pragmatic, health outcomes trial evaluating the incorporation of hylan G-F 20 into the treatment paradigm for patients with knee osteoarthritis (Part 2 of 2): economic results. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2002;10:518-527.
8. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.
9. Morrow RH, Hyder AA, Murray CJ, et al. Measuring the burden of disease. Lancet. 1998:352:1859-1861.
10. Higginson IJ, Carr AJ. Measuring quality of life: using quality of lifemeasures in the clinical setting. BMJ. 2001;322:1297-1300.
11. Le Gales C, Buron C, Costet N, et al. Development of a preference-weighted health status classification system in France: the Health Utilities Index 3. Health Care Manag Sci. 2002;5:41-51.
12. Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ, van der Maas PJ. Valuation of health states by the general public: feasibility of a standardized measurement procedure. Soc Sci Med. 1990;31:1201-1206.
13. Essink-Bot ML, Stouthard ME, Bonsel GJ. Generalizability of valuations on health states collected with the EuroQol-questionnaire. Health Econ. 1993:2:237-346.
14. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37: 53-72.
15. Bjork S, Korinder A. The weighting exercise for the Swedish version of the EuroQol. Health Econ. 1999;8:117-126.
16. Bonsel GJ, Gemke RJBJ. Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and 3: Dutch Translated Version. Amsterdam: Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Academic Medical Center Amsterdam and Wilhelmina's Children's hospital and Utrecht Medical School; 1996.
17. Gemke RJ, Bonsel GJ. Reliability and validity of a comprehensive health status measure in a heterogeneous population of children admitted to intensive care. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:327-333.
18. Krabbe PF, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ. The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods. Soc Sci Med. 1997:45:1641-1652.
19. Patrick DL, Starks HE, Cain KC, et al. Measuring preferences for health states worse than death. Med Decis Making. 1994;14:9-18.
20. Macran S, Kind P. "Death" and the valuation of health-related quality of life. Med Care. 2001;39:217-227.
21. Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Making. 2001:21:329-334.
22. Shavelson RJ, Webb NM, Rowley GZ. Generalizibility theory. Am Psychologist. 1989;44:922-932.
23. Krabbe PF, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ. On the equivalence of collectiveiy and individually collected responses: standard-gamble and time-tradeoff judgments of health states. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:120-132.
24. Nocera FD, Ferlazzo F, Borghi V. G theory and the reliability of psychophysiological measures: a tutorial. Psychophysiology. 2001;38: 796-806.
25. Nord E. The validity of a visual analogue scale in determining social utility weights for health states. Int J Health Plan Manage. 1991;6:234-242.
26. Dolan P, Sutton M. Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:1519-1530.
27. Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures: statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials. 1991;12(4 suppl):142S-158S.
28. 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.
29. van Agt HM, Essink-Bot ML, Krabbe PF, et al. Test-retest reliability of health state valuations collected with the EuroQol questionnaire. Soc Sci Med. 1994:39:1537-1544.