Quality-of-Life weights for the US population: Self-reported health status and priority health conditions, by demographic characteristics

Medical Care

Volumn 45, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 618-628

  Nyman, John A ^a   Barleen, Nathan A ^a   Dowd, Bryan E ^a   Russell, Daniel W ^b   Coons, Stephen Joel ^c   Sullivan, Patrick W ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness analysis; Cost utility analysis; Economic evaluation; Preference weights; Quality of life

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; CHRONIC DISEASE; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DEMOGRAPHY; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MENTAL HEALTH; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SEX DIFFERENCE; UNITED STATES; WALKING DIFFICULTY;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; CHRONIC DISEASE; DEMOGRAPHY; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; MENTAL HEALTH; MIDDLE AGED; MOBILITY LIMITATION; PAIN; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SEX FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34250772526     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31803dce05     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al, eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press;1996.
2. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd Ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press;2005.
3. Brooks R. EuroQoL: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37:53-72.
4. Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. Multi-attribute preference functions: Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;7:503-520.
5. Kaplan RM, Anderson JP. The General Health Policy Model: an integrated approach. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippencott-Raven;1996:309-322.
6. Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, et al. Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 health survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1115-1128.
7. Petrou S, Hockley C. An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Econ. 2005;14:1169-1189.
8. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [MEPS website]. Available at: www.meps.ahrq.gov. Accessed on June 15, 2006.
9. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the Dl valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43:203-220.
10. Hirth R A, Chernew ME, Miller E, et al. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making. 2000;20:332-342.
11. EuroQol Group [EuroQol website]. Available at: http://www.euroqol.org/ web. Accessed on June 15, 2006.
12. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London, England: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2004.
13. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al. A Social Tariff for EuroQol: Results From a U.K. General Population Survey. Discussion paper No.138. York, England: Centre for Health Economics, The University of York; 1995.
14. Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, et al. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ. 1998;316:736-741.
15. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [Research Initiative in Clinical Economics website]. Available at: www.ahrq.gov/rice. Accessed on June 15, 2006.
16. Pagan A, Vella F. Diagnostic tests for models based on individual data: a survey. J Appl Econ. 1989;4:S29-S59.
17. Fin T, Schmitz P. A test for the Tobit specification versus an alternative suggested by Cragg. Rev Econ Stat. 1984;66:174-177.
18. Powell JL. Least absolute deviations estimation for the censored regression model. J Econ. 1984;25:303-325.
19. Sullivan PW, Lawrence WF, Ghushchyan V. A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Care. 2005;43:736-749.
20. index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Decis Making. 2006;26:401-409.
21. Stata [Stata website]. Available at: www.stata.com/company. Accessed June 15, 2006.
22. Department of Health and Human Services [The 2006 HHS Poverty Guidelines website]. Available at: www.aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/06poverty. shtml. Accessed on June 15, 2006.