Applying the expectancy-value model to understand health values

Value in Health

Volumn 11, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2008, Pages

  Zhang, Xu Hao ^a   Xie, Feng ^d   Wee, Hwee Lin ^b   Thumboo, Julian ^b   Li, Shu Chuen ^a,c  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

^b SINGAPORE GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Singapore)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE   (Australia)

^d MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Attitude; Expectancy value model; Health psychology; Health value

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; ATTITUDE; CONFERENCE PAPER; EUROPEAN QUALITY OF LIFE QUESTIONNAIRE FIVE DIMENSION; EXPECTANCY; FAMILY; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; MALE; MEASUREMENT; MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCORING SYSTEM; VALIDATION PROCESS; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

EID: 41749119908     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00368.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (26)

1. Petitti DB. Meta-Analysis, Decision Analysis, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1994.
2. Winkelmayer WC, Benner JS, Glynn RJ, et al. Assessing health state utilities in elderly patients at cardiovascular risk. Med Decis Making 2006 26 : 247 54.
3. Dion MJ, Tousignant P, Bourbeau J, et al. Measurement of health preferences among patients with tuberculous infection and disease. Med Decis Making 2002 22 (Suppl. 5 S102 14.
4. Cardarelli C, Cereda C, Masiero L, et al. Evaluation of health status and health-related quality of life in a cohort of Italian children following treatment for a primary brain tumor. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2006 46 : 637 44.
5. Shah VA, Gupta SK, Shah KV, et al. Utility scores measure quality of life in patients with visual morbidity due to diabetic retinopathy or ARMD. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2004 11 : 43 51.
6. Ko CY, Maggard M, Livingston EH. Evaluating health utility in patients with melanoma, breast cancer, colon cancer, and lung cancer: a nationwide, population-based assessment. J Surg Res 2003 114 : 1 5.
7. Byrne MM, O'Malley KJ, Suarez-Almazor ME. Ethnic differences in health preferences: analysis using willingness-to-pay. J Rheumatol 2004 31 : 1811 8.
8. Franic DM, Pathak DS. Effect of including (versus excluding) fates worse than death on utility measurement. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003 19 : 347 61.
9. Wildi SM, Cox MH, Clark LL, et al. Assessment of health state utilities and quality of life in patients with malignant esophageal dysphagia. Am J Gastroenterol 2004 99 : 1044 9.
10. Chan YM, Leung TN, Leung TY, et al. The utility assessment of Chinese pregnant women towards the birth of a baby with Down syndrome compared to a procedure-related miscarriage. Prenat Diagn 2006 26 : 819 24.
11. Eagly AH, Chaiken S. The Psychology of Attitudes. Fortworth, TX : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, 1993.
12. Glaz K, Rimer BK, Lewis FM. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass, 2002.
13. King JT Jr, Styn MA, Tsevat J, Roberts MS. "Perfect health" versus "disease free": the impact of anchor point choice on the measurement of preference values and the calculation of disease-specific disutilities. Med Decis Making 2003 23 : 212 25.
14. Fishbein M, Raven BH. The AB scales: an operational definition of belief and attitude. Hum Relat 1962 15 : 35 44.
15. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA : Addison-Wesley, 1975.
16. EuroQol Group. EuroQol - a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990 16 : 199 208.
17. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997 35 : 1095 108.
18. Fern EF. Advanced Focus Group Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage, 2001.
19. Holly E. The Focus Group Research Handbook. NTC Business Books. Lincolnwood, IL : Contemporary Publishing Group, 1999.
20. Kind P. The EuroQoL instrument: an index of health-related quality of life. In : Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Philadelphia, PA : Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996.
21. Van DM, Koot HM, Saad HH, et al. Observational visual analog scale in pediatric pain assessment: useful tool or good riddance? Clin J Pain 2002 18 : 310 6.
22. Krabbe PF, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ. The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods. Soc Sci Med 1997 45 : 1641 52.
23. Polsky D, Keating NL, Weeks JC, Schulman KA. Patient choice of breast cancer treatment: impact on health state preferences. Med Care 2002 40 : 1068 79.
24. Polsky D, Mandelblatt JS, Weeks JC, et al. Economic evaluation of breast cancer treatment: considering the value of patient choice. J Clin Oncol 2003 21 : 1139 46.
25. Du Toit R, Pritchard N, Heffernan S, et al. A comparison of three different scales for rating contact lens handling. Optom Vis Sci 2002 79 : 313 20.
26. Hasson D, Arnetz BB. Validation and findings comparing VAS vs. Likert scales for psychosocial measurements. Int Electron J Health Educ 2005 8 : 178 92.