Feasibility study towards valuing visual impairment using simulation spectacles

Health Economics

Volumn 16, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 537-543

  Aballéa, Samuel ^a   Tsuchiya, Aki ^b  

^a Health Economics and Outcomes Research   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Public preferences; Simulation; Time trade off; Utility assessment; Visual impairment

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; DISEASE SIMULATION; FEASIBILITY STUDY; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH; SPECTACLES; VISUAL IMPAIRMENT; ADOLESCENT; FEMALE; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; UNITED KINGDOM; UTILIZATION REVIEW; VISUAL DISORDER;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; EYEGLASSES; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT SATISFACTION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; VISION DISORDERS;

EID: 34248996920     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.1184     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. 2002. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics 21(2): 271-292.
2. Brooks R. 1996. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 37(1): 53-72.
3. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. 1996. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. Journal of Health Economics 15(2): 209-231.
4. Dolan P. 1997. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care 35(11): 1095-1108.
5. Dolan P. 2000. The measurement of health-related quality of life for use in resource allocation decisions in health care. In Handbook of Health Economics, Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP (eds), vol. 1B. North-Holland: Amsterdam, 1723-1760.
6. Efron R, Tibshirani RJ. 1993. Hypothesis testing with the bootstrap. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman & Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, 220-235.
7. Furlong WJ, Feeny DH, Torrance GW, Barr RD. 2001. The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Annals of Medicine 33(5): 375-384.
8. Gold MR, Patrick DL, Torrance GW et al. 1996. Identifying and valuing outcomes. In Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC (eds). Oxford University Press: New York, 82-134.
9. Gudex C (ed.). Time Trade-Off User Manual: Props and Self-Completion Methods. Centre for Health Economics: University of York, 1994.
10. 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(7133): 736-741.
11. Mangione CM, Lee PP, Gutierrez PR, Spritzer K, Berry S, Hays RD. 2001. Development of the 25-item national eye institute visual function questionnaire. Archives of Ophthalmology 119(7): 1050-1058.
12. McNeil BJ, Weichselbaum R, Pauker SG. 1981. Speech and survival: tradeoffs between quality and quantity of life in laryngeal cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 305(17): 982-987.
13. Morss SE, Lenert LA, Faustman WO. 1993. The side effects of antipsychotic drugs and patients' quality of life: patient education and preference assessment with computers and multimedia. Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computational Application in Medical Care, 17-21.
14. Tate R, Smeeth L, Evans J, Fletcher A. 2006. The prevalence of visual impairment in the UK. A review of the literature. http://www.rnib.org.uk, 15 May 2006.
15. Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D. 2002. Health utility estimation. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 2(2): 99-108.
16. Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL. 1972. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Service Research 7(2): 118-133.