Preference-based quality of life in patients with cerebral aneurysms

Stroke

Volumn 36, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 303-309

  King Jr , Joseph T ^a,b   Tsevat, Joel ^c,d,e   Roberts, Mark S ^f,g  

^a VA CONNECTICUT HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d Inst Hlth Plcy/Hlth Serv Res   (United States)

^e VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

Intracranial aneurysm; Neurosurgery; Outcome; Quality of life; Subarachnoid hemorrhage

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BARTHEL INDEX; BRAIN ARTERY ANEURYSM; CLINICAL FEATURE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FEMALE; GLASGOW COMA SCALE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENT; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEUROSURGERY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANKIN SCALE; SUBARACHNOID HEMORRHAGE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALGORITHMS; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; GAME THEORY; GLASGOW OUTCOME SCALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; INTRACRANIAL ANEURYSM; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE;

EID: 12844266741     PISSN: 00392499     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.0000152950.46598.f1     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. McDowell I, Newel C. General health status and quality of life. Measuring Health. A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996:380-492.
2. Jennett B, Bond M. Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage. A practical scale. Lancet. 1975;1:480-484.
3. Rankin J. Cerebrovascular accidents in patients over the age of 60: II. Prognosis. Scot Med J. 1957;2:200-215.
4. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md Med J. 1965;14:61-65.
5. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. A 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473-483.
6. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. New York: Wiley; 1953.
7. Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res. 1972;7:118-133.
8. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales. A practical guide to their development and use. New York: Oxford University Press; 1989.
9. Diener A, O'Brien B, Gafni A. Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Econ. 1998;7:313-326.
10. Lenert LA, Sturley A, Watson ME. iMPACT3: internet-based development and administration of utility elicitation protocols. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:464-474.
11. King JT, Jr, Tsevat J, Moossy JJ, Roberts MS. Preference-based quality of life measurement in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine. 2004;29:1271-1280.
12. The Dutch TIA trial: protective effects of low-dose aspirin and atenolol in patients with transient ischemic attacks or nondisabling stroke. The Dutch TIA Study Group. Stroke 1988;19:512-517.
13. Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S, Home V. The Barthel ADL index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Studies. 1988;10:61-63.
14. Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers. U S Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site, 2003. Available at: URL: http:// data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost. Accessed May 5, 2004.
15. Cuzick J. A Wilcoxon-type test for trend. Stat Med. 1985;4:87-90.
16. Post PN, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP. The utility of health states after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Stroke. 2001;32:1425-1429.
17. Tijhuis GJ, Jansen SJ, Stiggelbout AM, Zwinderman AH, Hazes JM, Vlieland TP. Value of the time trade off method for measuring utilities in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2000;59:892-897.
18. Kiebert GM, Green C, Murphy C, Mitchell JD, O'Brien M, Burrell A, Leigh PN. Patients' health-related quality of life and utilities associated with different stages of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Neurol Sci. 2001;191:87-93.
19. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
20. van Wijck EE, Bosch JL, Hunink MG. Time-tradeoff values and standard-gamble utilities assessed during telephone interviews versus face-to-face interviews. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:400-405.
21. Ross PL, Littenberg B, Fearn P, Scardino PT, Karakiewicz PI, Kattan MW. Paper standard gamble: a paper-based measure of standard gamble utility for current health. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:135-147.
22. Littenberg B, Partilo S, Licata A, Kattan MW. Paper Standard Gamble: the reliability of a paper questionnaire to assess utility. Med Decis Making. 2003;23:480-488.
23. Fryback DG, Lawrence WFJ. Dollars may not buy as many QALYs as we think: a problem with defining quality-of-life adjustments. Med Decis Making. 1997;17:276-284.
24. King JT, Jr., Styn MA, Tsevat J, Roberts MS. "Perfect health" versus "disease free": the impact of anchor point choice on the measurement of preferences and the calculation of disease-specific disutilities. Med Decis Making. 2003;23:212-225.