Determining priority for liver transplantation: A comparison of cost per QALY and discrete choice experiment-generated public preferences

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 249-255

  Ratcliffe, Julie ^a   Buxton, Martin ^b   Young, Tracey ^b   Longworth, Louise ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DONOR; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; LIVER DISEASE; LIVER GRAFT; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; PATIENT; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRODUCTIVITY; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANK SUM TEST; REVIEW; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; SURVIVAL; UNITED KINGDOM;

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CHOLANGITIS, SCLEROSING; CHRONIC DISEASE; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EFFICIENCY, ORGANIZATIONAL; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HUMANS; LIVER CIRRHOSIS, ALCOHOLIC; LIVER CIRRHOSIS, BILIARY; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; PATIENT SELECTION; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SOCIAL JUSTICE; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; WAITING LISTS;

EID: 32644449070     PISSN: 11755652     EISSN: 11755652     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00148365-200504040-00007     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Neuberger J. Developments in liver transplantation. Gut 2004; 53: 759-68
2. 2001 annual report of the US Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients: Transplant Data 1991-2000. Rockville (MD): Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Office of Special Programs, Division of Transplantation; Richmond (VA): United Network for Organ Sharing; Ann Arbor (MI): University Renal Research and Education Association, 2001
3. National Health Service (NHS) UK Transplant. Transplant activity in the UK 2002-2003. Stoke Gifford: UK Transplant, 2003
4. Ghent CN. Overall evaluation: screening and assessment of risk factors. Liver Transpl Surg 1996; 2: 2-8
5. Neuberger J, Adams D, McMaster P, et al. Assessing priorities for allocation of donor liver grafts: survey of public and clinicians. BMJ 1998; 317: 172-5
6. Ubel P, Loewenstein G. The efficacy and equity of retransplantation: an experimental survey of public attitudes. Health Policy 1995; 34: 145-51
7. Ubel P, Loewenstein G. Distributing scarce livers: the moral reasoning of the general public. Soc Sci Med 1996; 42: 1049-55
8. Peters TG. Organ donors and non-donors. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 2419-24
9. Haustein SV, Sellers MT. Factors associated with (un)willingness to be an organ donor: importance of public exposure and knowledge. Clin Transplant 2004; 18: 193-200
10. Ratcliffe J. Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Health Econ 2000; 9: 137-48
11. Longworth L, Young T, Buxton M, et al. Mid term cost effectiveness of the liver transplantation programme of England and Wales for three liver disease groups. Liver Transpl 2003; 9: 1295-307
12. Dolan P. Modelling valuations for Euroqol health states. Med Care 1997; 35 (11): 1095-108
13. Young T, Longworth L, Ratcliffe J. Survival on the waiting list, post transplant and estimated survival in the absence of transplantation: final report to the Department of Health. Uxbridge: Brunel University, 2000
14. StataCorp. Stata statistical software: release 8.0. College Station (TX): Stata Corporation, 2003
15. Great Britain HM Treasury. The green book appraisal and evaluation in central government. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO), 2003
16. Neuberger J, Ubel PA. Finding a place for public preferences in liver allocation decisions. Transplantation 2000; 70: 1411-3
17. Neuberger J, Lucey M. Liver transplantation practice and management. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1994
18. Dolan P, Cookson R, Ferguson B. Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public's views of priority setting in health care: focus group study. BMJ 1999; 318: 916-9