Do personal and societal preferences differ by socio-demographic group?

Health Economics

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 319-325

  Franks, Peter ^a   Lubetkin, Erica I ^b   Melnikow, Joy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Health status; Population health; Preferences; Socio economic status

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; ETHNIC DIFFERENCE; FEMALE; GENDER BIAS; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; SOCIAL STATUS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ETHNIC GROUPS; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF LIFE; SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS;

EID: 33947274118     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.1152     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Brazier J, Jones N, Kind P. 1993. Testing the validity of the Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Quality of Life Research 2: 169-180.
2. Chen C, Lee SY, Stevenson HW. 1995. Response style and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scales among East Asian and North American students. Psychological Science 6: 170-175.
3. de Boer AG, van Lanschot JJ, Stalmeier PF et al. 2004. Is a single-item visual analogue scale as valid, reliable and responsive as multi-item scales in measuring quality of life? Quality of Life Research 13: 311-320.
4. Dolan P. 1997. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care 35: 1095-1108.
5. Fleishman JA, Lawrence WF. 2003. Demographic variation in SF-12 scores: true differences or differential item functioning? Medical Care 41: III75-III86.
6. Franks P, Gold MR, Fiscella K. 2003. Sociodemographics, self-rated health, and mortality in the US. Social Science and Medicine 56: 2505-2514.
7. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC (eds). 1996. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press: New York.
8. Greiner W, Weijnen T, Nieuwenhuizen M, Oppe S, de Charro F. 2003. A European EQ-5D VAS valuation set. In The Measurement and Valuation of Health Status using EQ-5D: A European Perspective, Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F (eds). Evidence from the EuroQol BIOMED Research Programme. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003: 103-142.
9. Grootendorst P, Feeny D, Furlong W. 2000. Health Utilities Index Mark 3: evidence of construct validity for stroke and arthritis in a population health survey. Medical Care 38: 290-299.
10. Hui H, Triandis HC. 1989. Effects of culture and response format on extreme response style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 20: 296-309.
11. Humphries KH, van Doorslaer E. 2000. Income-related health inequality in Canada. Social Science and Medicine 50: 663-671.
12. Hurst NP, Kind P, Ruta D, Hunter M, Stubbings A. 1997. Measuring health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: validity, responsiveness and reliability of EuroQol (EQ-5D). British Journal of Rheumatology 36: 551-559.
13. Insinga RP, Fryback DG. 2003. Understanding differences between self-ratings and population ratings for health in the EuroQOL. Quality of Life Research 12: 611-619.
14. Kathleen WW, Monika B, Neil A, Ron DH, Donald LP, Tara S. 2005. Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Quality of Life Research 14: 285-295.
15. Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, Williams A. 1998. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. British Medical Journal 316: 736-741.
16. Mrus JM, Yi MS, Freedberg KA et al. 2003. Utilities derived from visual analog scale scores in patients with HIV/AIDS. Medical Decision Making 23: 414-421.
17. Rabin R, de Charro F. 2001. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annales de Medicine 33: 337-343.
18. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. 2005. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Medical Care 43: 203-220.
19. Sullivan M, Karlsson J. 1998. The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey III. Evaluation of criterion-based validity: results from normative population. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 51: 1105-1113.
20. Tamim. H, McCusker J, Dendukuri N. 2002. Proxy reporting of quality of life using the EQ-5D. Medical Care 40: 1186-1195.
21. Torrance GW. 1976. Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Economic Planning Science 10: 129-136.
22. Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. 2001. Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Medical Decision Making 21: 329-334.
23. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. 2003. What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Quality Life Outcomes 1: 4.
24. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. 2005. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Quality of Life Research 14: 1523-1532.