[Commentary] quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and substance use disorders

Addiction

Volumn 103, Issue 8, 2008, Pages 1331-1332

  Pyne, Jeffrey M ^a,b   French, Michael ^c   McCollister, Kathryn ^c   Tripathi, Shanti ^b   Rapp, Richard ^d   Booth, Brenda ^b  

^a CENTRAL ARKANSAS VETERANS HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI   (United States)

^d WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DEPRESSION; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH SERVICE; HEALTH STATUS; LIFE SATISFACTION; NOTE; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; SUBSTANCE ABUSE; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

EID: 47549118890     PISSN: 09652140     EISSN: 13600443     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02289.x     Document Type: Note

References (17)

1. Cummins R. A. Preference-weighted health-related quality of life and addiction - a critique. Addiction 2008 103 : 1330 1.
2. Pyne J. M., French M., McCollister K., Tripathi S., Rapp R., Booth B. Preference-weighted health-related quality of life measures and substance use disorder severity. Addiction 2008 103 : 1320 9.
3. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. 2004. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/ TAP_Methods.pdf (accessed 2 January 2008).
4. Gold M. R., Siegel J. E., Russell L. B., Weinstein M. C., editors. Cost-Effectiveness In Health And Medicine. New York : Oxford University Press, Inc 1996.
5. Henry D. A., Hill S. R., Harris A. Drug prices and value for money: the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits scheme. JAMA 2005 294 : 2630 2.
6. World Health Organization. Constitution of the World Health Organization. WHO Basic Documents. Geneva : World Health Organization 1948.
7. Fayers P., Machin D. Quality of Life: The Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 2nd edn. West Sussex, England : John Wiley & Sons 2007.
8. Hadorn D. C. The problem of discrimination in health care priority setting. JAMA 1992 268 : 1454 9.
9. Boyd N., Sutherland H., Heasman K. Z., Tritchier D. L., Cummings B. J. Whose utilities for decision analysis? Med Decis Making 1990 10 : 58 67.
10. Dolders M. G., Zeegers M. P., Groot W., Ament A. A meta-analysis demonstrates no significant differences between patient and population preferences. J Clin Epidemiol 2006 59 : 653 64.
11. De Wit G. A., Busschbach J. J., De Charro F. T. Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count? Health Econ 2000 9 : 109 26.
12. Kaplan R. M., Sieber W. J., Ganiats T. G. The quality of well-being scale: comparison of the interviewer-administered version with a self-administered questionnaire. Psychol Health 1997 12 : 783 91.
13. Brazier J. E., Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care 2004 42 : 851 9.
14. Compton W. M. III., Cottler L. B., Phelps D. L., Ben A. A., Spitznagel E. L. Psychiatric disorders among drug dependent subjects: are they primary or secondary? Am J Addict 2000 9 : 126 34.
15. Atkinson M., Zibin S., Chuang H. Characterizing quality of life among patients with chronic mental illness: a critical examination of the self-report methodology. Am J Psychiatry 1997 154 : 99 105.
16. Alloy L. B., Abramson L. Y. Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: sadder but wiser? J Exp Psychol Gen 1979 108 : 441 85.
17. Seligman M. E. P. Learned Optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Your Life. New York : A.A. Knopf 1998.