Incorporation of process preferences within the QALY framework: A study of alternative methods

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 443-452

  McNamee, Paul ^a,c   Seymour, Janelle ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^c Institute of Applied Health Sciences   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Esophageal cancer; Palliative care; Preferences; Process of care; QALYs; Standard gamble; Time tradeoff

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; BRACHYTHERAPY; CANCER SURGERY; CANCER THERAPY; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ESOPHAGUS; ESOPHAGUS CANCER; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PALLIATIVE THERAPY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; STENT;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS, MEDICAL; ESOPHAGEAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HUMANS; MALE; PALLIATIVE CARE; PATIENT CARE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 44049093472     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07312473     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Sculpher M. The cost-effectiveness of preference-based treatment allocation: the case of hysterectomy versus endometrial resection in the treatment of menorrhagia. Health Econ. 1998 ; 7: 129-42.
2. Sculpher M., Gafni A., Watt I. Shared treatment decision making in a collectively funded health care system: possible conflicts and some potential solutions. Soc Sci Med. 2002 ; 54: 1369-77.
3. Charles C., Gafni A., Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997 ; 44: 681-92.
4. Thomson R., Parkin D., Eccles L., Sudlow M., Robinson A. Decision analysis and guidelines for anticoagulant therapy to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Lancet. 2000 ; 355: 956-62.
5. Knight SJ, Nathan DP, Siston AK, et al. Pilot study of a utilities-based treatment decision intervention for prostate cancer patients. Clin Prost Cancer. 2002 ; 1: 105-14.
6. Harris RA, Washington AE, Nease RF Jr, KuppermannM. Cost utility of prenatal diagnosis and the risk-based threshold. Lancet. 2004 ; 363: 276-82.
7. Van der Donk J., Levendag PC, Kuijpers AJ, et al. Patient participation in clinical decision-making for treatment of T3 laryngeal cancer: a comparison of state and process utilities. J Clin Oncol. 1995 ; 13: 2369-78.
8. Hayman JA, Fairclough DL, Harris JR, Weeks JC Patient preferences concerning the trade-off between the risks and benefits of routine radiation therapy after conservative surgery for early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1997 ; 15: 1252-60.
9. Jansen SJ, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP, et al. Patients' utilities for cancer treatments: a study of the chained procedure for the standard gamble and time tradeoff. Med Decis Making. 1998 ; 18: 391-9.
10. Birch S., Melnikow J., Kuppermann M. Conservative versus aggressive follow up of mildly abnormal Pap smears: testing for process utility. Health Econ. 2003 ; 12: 879-84.
11. Koedoot CG, de Haan RJ, Stiggelbout AM, et al. Palliative chemotherapy or best supportive care? A prospective study explaining patients' treatment preference and choice. Br J Cancer. 2003 ; 89: 2219-26.
12. Gattellari M., Butow PN, Tattersall MH Sharing decisions in cancer care. Soc Sci Med. 2001 ; 52: 1865-78.
13. Shenfine J., McNamee P., Steen N., Glendinning S., Bond J., Griffin SM A pragmatic randomized controlled trial of the cost-effectiveness of palliative therapies for patients with inoperable oesophageal cancer. Health Technol Assess. 2005 ; 9 (5). 1-136.
14. McNamee P., Glendinning S., Shenfine J., Steen N., Griffin SM, Bond J. Chained time trade-off and standard gamble methods: applications in oesophageal cancer. Eur J Health Econ. 2004 ; 5: 81-6.
15. Morrison GC, Neilson A., Malek M. Improving the sensitivity of the time trade-off method: results of an experiment using chained TTO questions. Health Care Manag Sci. 2002 ; 5 (1). 53-61.
16. Löthgren M., Zethraeus N. Definition, interpretation and calculation of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ. 2000 ; 9: 623-30.
17. Stinnett A., Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 1998 ; 18: 68-80.
18. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technical Appraisal. Draft consultation document. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence ; 2003.
19. Basu A., Meltzer D. Value of information on preference heterogeneity and individualized care. Med Decis Making. 2007 ; 27: 1-16.