Overcoming inherent problems of preference-based techniques for measuring health benefits: An empirical study in the context of kidney transplantation

BMC Health Services Research

Volumn 6, Issue , 2006, Pages

  Kontodimopoulos, Nick ^a   Niakas, Dimitris ^a  

^a HELLENIC OPEN UNIVERSITY   (Greece)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DEMOGRAPHY; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EDUCATION; EMPIRICISM; EMPLOYMENT; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; GREECE; HEALTH CARE FINANCING; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH SURVEY; HEMODIALYSIS; HUMAN; KIDNEY FAILURE; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MARRIAGE; METHODOLOGY; PARAMETRIC TEST; PATIENT ATTITUDE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RELIABILITY; RISK; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; STUDENT T TEST; TECHNIQUE; VALIDATION STUDY; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; ECONOMICS; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; KIDNEY FAILURE, CHRONIC; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIOECONOMICS;

ADULT; AGED; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; DEMOGRAPHY; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; FEMALE; FINANCING, PERSONAL; GREECE; HUMANS; KIDNEY FAILURE, CHRONIC; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; QUESTIONNAIRES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; VALUE OF LIFE;

EID: 33244467245     PISSN: 14726963     EISSN: 14726963     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-6-3     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddard GL, Torrance GW, eds: Methods for the Economic Valuation of Health Care Programmes 2nd edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 1997.
2. Torrance GW: Measurements of health status utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ 1986, 5:1-30.
3. De Wit GA, Merkus MP, Krediet RT, De Charro FT: Health profiles and health preferences of dialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transpl 2002, 17:86-92.
4. Maor Y, King M, Olmer L, Mozes B: A comparison of three measures: the time trade-off technique, global health-related quality of life and the SF-36 in dialysis patients. J Clin Epidemiol 2001, 54:565-570.
5. O'Brien B, Gafni A: When do the "dollars" make sense? Toward a conceptual framework for contingent valuation studies in health care. Med Decis Making 1996, 16:288-299.
6. 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.
7. Klose T: The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy 1999, 47:97-123.
8. Ashcroft RE, Chadwick DW, Clark SR, Edwards RH, Frith L, Hutton JL: Implications of socio-cultural contexts for the ethics of clinical trials - A review. Health Technology Assessment 1997, 1:1-57.
9. Sullivan M: The new subjective medicine: taking the patient's point of view on health care and health. Soc Sci Med 2003, 56:1595-1604.
10. Blumenschein K, Johannesson M: Relationship between quality of life instruments, health state utilities and willingness to pay in patients with asthma. Ann Allerg Asthma Im 1998, 80:189-194.
11. Lundberg L, Johannesson M, Silverdahl M, Hermansson C, Lindberg M: Quality of life, health-state utilities and willingness to pay in patients with psoriasis and atopic eczema. Brit J Dermatol 1999, 141:1067-1075.
12. Lalonde L, Clarke AE, Lawrence J, Mackenzie T, Grover SA: Comparing the psychometric properties of preference-based and nonpreference-based health-related quality of life in coronary heart disease. Qual Life Res 1999, 8:399-409.
13. Lee GM, Salomon JA, LeBaron CW, Lieu TA: Health-state valuations for pertussis: methods for valuing short term healthstates. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2005, 3:17.
14. Niakas D: The political economy of health care in Greece. In Handbook of International Health Care Systems Edited by: Thai KV, Wimberley ET, Macmanus SM. Marsel Dekker, New York; 2002.
15. Kontodimopoulos N, Niakas D, Mylonakis J: A socio-economic evaluation of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis in Greece. Int J Healthc Technol Manag 2005, 6:296-306.
16. Stalmeier PF, Bezembinder TG: The discrepancy between risky and riskless utilities. Med Decis Making 1999, 19:435-447.
17. Donaldson C: Eliciting patients' values by use of "willingness to pay": letting the theory drive the method. Health Expectations 2001, 4:180-188.
18. O'Brien B, Viramontes JL: Willingness to pay: A valid and reliable measure of health state preference. Med Decis Making 1994, 14:289-297.
19. Sach TH, Whynes DK, O'Neil C, O'Donoghue GM, Archbold SM: Willingness-to-pay for pediatric cochlear implantation. Int J Pediatr Otorhi 2004, 68:91-99.
20. Van Nooten F, Brouwer W: The influence of subjective expectations about length and quality of life on time trade-off answers. Health Econ 2004, 13:819-823.
21. Williams A: Intergenerational equity: An exploration of the "fair innings" argument. Health Econ 1997, 6:117-132.
22. Hammitt JK: QALYs versus WTP. Risk Anal 2002, 22:985-1001.
23. Blumenschein K, Johannesson M: An experimental test of question framing in health state utility assessment. Health Policy 1998, 45:187-193.
24. Tversky A, Fox CR: Weighing risk and uncertainty. Psychol 1995, 102:269-283.
25. Bala MV, Wood LL, Zarkin GA, Norton EC, Gafni A, O'Brien B: Valuing outcomes in health care: a comparison of willingness to pay and quality adjusted life years. J Clin Epidemiol 1998, 8:667-676.
26. 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 Journal Technol Assess 2003, 19:135-147.
27. 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.
28. Olsen JA, Smith RD: Theory versus practice: A review of willingness-to-pay in health and health care. Health Econ 2001, 10:39-52.
29. Yfantopoulos J: The Greek version of the EuroQol (EQ-5D) instrument. Archives of Hellenic Medicine 2001, 18:180-191.
30. Lenert L, Kaplan RM: Validity and interpretation of preferencebased measures of health-related quality of life. Med Care 2000, 38(Suppl II):138-150.
31. Hanita M: Self-report measures of patient utility: Should we trust them? J Clin Epidemiol 2000, 53:469-476.
32. Stavem K: Quality of life in epilepsy: Comparison of four preference measures. Epilepsy Res 1998, 29:201-209.
33. Tsevat J: What do utilities measure? Med Care 2000, 38:160-164.
34. Torrance GW, Feeny D: Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int Journal Technol Assess 1989, 5:559-575.
35. Bowe TR: Measuring patient preferences: Rating scales versus standard gamble. Med Decis Making 1995, 15:283-285.
36. Johannesson M, Liljas B, Johansson PO: An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions. Appl Econ 1998, 30:643-647.
37. Olsen JA, Kidholm K, Donaldson C, Shackley P: Willingness to pay for public health care: a comparison of two approaches. Health Policy 2004, 70:217-228.
38. Ryan M, Scott DA, Donaldson C: Valuing health care using willingness to pay: A comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods. J Health Econ 2004, 23:237-258.
39. Revicki DA, Kaplan RM: Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of healthrelated quality of life. Qual Life Res 1993, 2:477-487.
40. Smith RD: Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: a critical assessment. Health Econ 2003, 12:609-628.
41. Johannesson M: A note on the relationship between ex ante and expected willingness to pay for health care. Soc Sci Med 1996, 42:305-311.
42. Olsen JA: Aiding priority setting in health care: is there a role for the contingent valuation method. Health Econ 1997, 6:603-612.
43. Mirowsky J: Subjective life expectancy in the US: correspondence to actuarial estimates by age, sex and race. Soc Sci Med 1999, 49:967-979.
44. Gafni A: The standard gamble method: What is being measured and how is it interpreted? Health Serv Res 1994, 29:207-224.