Relative disutilities of 47 risk factors and conditions assessed with seven preference-based health status measures in a national U.S. sample: Toward consistent in cost-effectiveness analyses

Medical Care

Volumn 44, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 478-485

  Franks, Peter ^a,c   Hanmer, Janel ^b   Fryback, Dennis G ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Chronic disease; Health status; Population health; Socioeconomic status

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; QUALITY OF LIFE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK FACTOR; SOCIOECONOMICS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH EXPENDITURES; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK FACTORS; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33646779215     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000207464.61661.05     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al, eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
2. Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, et al. Preferences for health outcomes. Comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making. 1984;4:315-329.
3. Hornberger JC, Redelmeier DA, Petersen J. Variability among methods to assess patients' well-being and consequent effect on a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:505-512.
4. Glick HA, Polsky D, Willke RJ, et al. A comparison of preference assessment instruments used in a clinical trial: responses to the visual analog scale from the EuroQol EQ-5D and the Health Utilities Index. Med Decis Making. 1999;19:265-275.
5. Hollingworth W, Deyo RA, Sullivan SD, et al. The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF-36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain. Health Econ. 2002;11:71-85.
6. Siderowf A, Ravina B, Glick HA. Preference-based quality-of-life in patients with Parkinson's disease. Neurology;. 2002;59:103-108.
7. Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME. Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med Care. 2003;41:791-801.
8. Lee TA, Hollingworth W, Sullivan SD. Comparison of directly elicited preferences to preferences derived from the SF-36 in adults with asthma. Med Decis Making. 2003;23:323-334.
9. O'Brien BJ, Spath M, Blackhouse G, et al. A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF-6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index. Health Econ. 2003;12:975-981.
10. Marra CA, Esdaile JM, Guh D, et al. A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care. 2004;42:1125-1131.
11. Pickard AS, Wang Z, Walton SM, et al. Are decisions using cost-utility analyses robust to choice of SF-36/SF-12 preference-based algorithm? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:11.
12. Bosch JL, Hunink MG. Comparison of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HU13) and the EuroQol EQ-5D in patients treated for intermittent claudication. Qual Life Res. 2000;9:591-601.
13. Bosch JL, Halpern EF, Gazelle GS. Comparison of preference-based utilities of the Short-Form 36 Health Survey and Health Utilities Index before and after treatment of patients with intermittent claudication. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:403-409.
14. Kaplan RM, Groessl EJ, Sengupta N, et al. Comparison of measured utility scores and imputed scores from the SF-36 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care. 2005;43:79-87.
15. Oostenbrink R, Moll HA, Essink-Bot ML. The EQ-5D and the Health Utilities Index for permanent sequelae after meningitis: a head-to-head comparison. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55:791-799.
16. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095-1108.
17. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Medical Care. 2005;43:203-220.
18. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33:337-343.
19. Brazier J, Jones N, Kind P. Testing the validity of the Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Qual Life Res. 1993;2:169-180.
20. Hurst NP, Kind P, Ruta D, et al. Measuring health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: validity, responsiveness and reliability of EuroQol (EQ-5D). Br J Rheumatol. 1997;36:551-559.
21. de Boer AG, van Lanschot JJ, Stalmeier PF, et al. Is a single-item visual analogue scale as valid, reliable and responsive as multi-item scales in measuring quality of life? Qual Life Res. 2004;13:311-320.
22. Gandek B, Ware JE, Aaronson NK, et al. Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 Health Survey in nine countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1171-1178.
23. Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey. Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliablity and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220-233.
24. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. How to Score the SF-12® Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales. 3rd ed. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated: 1998.
25. Brazier JE, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004;42:851-859.
26. Franks P, Lubetkin EI, Gold MR, et al. Mapping the SF-12 to the EuroQol EQ-5D Index in a national US sample. Med Decis Making. 2004;24:247-254.
27. Franks P, Lubetkin EI, Gold MR, et al. Mapping the SF-12 to preference-based instruments: convergent validity in a low-income, minority population. Med Care. 2003;41:1277-1283.
28. Lawrence WF, Fleishman JA. Predicting EuroQoL EQ-5D preference scores from the SF-12 Health Survey in a nationally representative sample. Med Decis Making. 2004;24:160-169.
29. 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.
30. Sengupta N, Nichol MB, Wu J, et al. Mapping the SF-12 to the HU13 and VAS in a managed care population. Med Care. 2004;42:927-937.
31. Austin PC. A comparison of methods for analyzing health-related quality-of-life measures. Value Health. 2002;5:329-337.
32. Kathleen WW, Monika B, Neil A, et al. Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Quality Life Res. 2005;14:285-295.
33. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Quality Life Rese. 2005;14:1523-1532.
34. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:4.
35. Grootendorst P, Feeny D, Furlong W. Health Utilities Index Mark 3: evidence of construct validity for stroke and arthritis in a population health survey. Med Care. 2000;38:290-299.
36. Neumann PJ, Goldie SJ, Weinstein MC. Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:587-611.
37. Gold MR, Muennig P. Measure-dependent variation in burden of disease estimates: implications for policy. Med Care. 2002;40:260-266.