Mapping between Visual Analog Scale and Standard Gamble data; result from the UK Health Utilities Index 2 valuation survey

Health Economics

Volumn 15, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 527-533

  Stevens, Katherine J ^a   McCabe, Christopher J ^a,b   Brazier, John E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Health state valuation; Health Utilities Index; Mapping; Standard Gamble; Visual Analogue Scale

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ALGORITHM; ANALYTIC METHOD; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; COGNITION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EMOTION; EMPIRICISM; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MALE; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MOBILIZATION; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RELIABILITY; SELF CARE; SENSATION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STANDARD GAMBLE; UNITED KINGDOM; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MIDDLE AGED; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

DATA COLLECTION; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PAIN MEASUREMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 33646596275     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.1076     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1-30.
2. Brazier JE, Deverill M, Green C, Harper R, Booth A. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 1999; 3(9): 1-164.
3. Dyer JS, Sarin RK. Relative risk aversion. Manage Sci 1982; 28(8): 875-886.
4. Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analogue scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Making Ed 2001; 21(4): 329-334.
5. Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, Boyle M. Multi-attribute preference functions: health utilties index. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7(6): 503-520.
6. Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Barr RD, Zhang Y, Wang Q. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system: Health Utilities Mark 2. Med Care 1996; 34(7): 702-722.
7. Torrance GW. Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Econ Plan Sci 1976; 10: 129-136.
8. Brazier J, Green C, McCabe C, Stevens K. Use of visual analog scales in economic evaluation. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2003; 3(3): 293-302.
9. Dolan P, Sutton M. Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values. Soc Sci Med 1997; 44(10): 1519-1530.
10. Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance GW, Barr R, Horsman J. Guide to design and development of health state utility instrumentation. CHEPA Working Paper #90-9, McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario, 1990.
11. Patrick DL, Starks HE, Cain K, Uhlmann RF, Pearlman RA. Measuring preferences for health states worse than death. Med Decis Making 1994; 14: 9-18.
12. Drummond MF. Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Ann Med 2001; 33: 344-349.
13. McCabe CJ, Stevens KJ, Brazier JE. Utility scores for the Health Utilities Index mark 2 an empirical assessment of alternative mapping functions. Med Care 2005; 43: 627-635.