Valuing health states for use in cost-effectiveness analysis

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 26, Issue 9, 2008, Pages 769-779

  Brazier, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DATA ANALYSIS; EUROPEAN QUALITY OF LIFE 5 DIMENSION DATA ANALYSIS; HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH STATE UTILITY VALUE; HUI3 DATA ANALYSIS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; METHODOLOGY; NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CLINICAL EXCELLENCE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; RATING SCALE; REFERENCE CASE MEASURE; REFERENCE VALUE; REVIEW; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; WELLBEING;

ACADEMIES AND INSTITUTES; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; VALUE OF LIFE;

EID: 51149089137     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200826090-00007     Document Type: Review

References (50)

1. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1-30
2. Brooks R, EuroQol Group. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37: 53-72
3. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35: 1095-108
4. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based single index measure for health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002; 21 (2): 271-92
5. Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Torrance GW, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility function: the Health Utility Index Mark 3 system. Medical Care 2002; 40 (2): 113-28
6. Dolan P. The measurement of health related quality of life for use in resource allocation in health care. In: Culyer AJ, New-house JP, editors. Handbook of health economics. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2000
7. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. Lawrenceville (NJ): ISPOR [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor.org/peguidelines/index.asp [Accessed 2008 Jul 1]
8. HM Treasury. The green book: appraisal and evaluation in central government. London: TSO, 2004
9. Beattie J, Covey J, Dolan P, et al. On the contingent valuation of safety and the safety of contingent valuation: part 1-caveat investigator. J Risk Uncertainty 1998; 17: 5-25
10. Olsen JA, Smith RD. Theory versus practice: a review of 'willingness to pay' in health and health care. Health Econ 2001; 10: 39-52
11. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996
12. Donaldson C, Shackley P. Does 'process utility' exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laporoscopic cholecystectomy. Soc Sci Med 1997; 44 (5): 285-94
13. Revicki DA, Leidy NK, Brennan-Diemer F, et al. Integrating patients' preferences into health outcomes assessment: the multi-attribute asthma symptom utility index. Chest 1998; 114 (4): 998-1007
14. Brazier JE, Czoski-Murray C, Roberts J, et al. Estimation of a preference-based index from a condition specific measure: the King's Health Questionnaire. Med Decis Making 2008; 28 (1): 113-26
15. Yang Y, Brazier JE, Tsuchyia A, et al. Estimating a preference-based index from the Over Active Bladder questionnaire. Value Health. In Press
16. Hall J, Gerard K, Salkeld G, et al. A cost utility analysis of mammography screening in Australia. Soc Sci Med 1992; 34 (9): 993-1004
17. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005
18. Gafni A, Birch S, Mehrez A. Economics, health and health economics: HYEs versus QALYs. J Health Econ 1993; 12 (3): 325-39
19. Richardson J. Cost-utility analysis: what should be measured. Soc Sci Med 1994; 39: 7-21
20. Bleichrodt H. A new explanation for the difference between time trade off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Econ 2002; 11 (5): 447-56
21. Salomon JA. Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data. Popul Health Metr 2003; 1 (1): 12 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.pophealthmetrics. com/content/1/1/12 [Accessed 2008 Jul 1]
22. McCabe C, Brazier J, Gilks P, et al. Using rank data to estimate health state utility models. J Health Econ 2006; 25 (3): 418-31
23. Nord E. The person-trade-off approach to valuing health care programs. Med Decis Making 1995; 15: 201-8
24. Dolan P, Sutton M. Mapping visual analogue scores onto time trade-off and standard gamble utilities. Soc Sci Med 1997; 44: 1519-30
25. Stevens KJ, McCabe CJ, Brazier JE. Mapping between visual analogue and standard gamble data: results from the UK Health Utilities Index 2 valuation. Health Econ 2006; 15 (5): 527-34
26. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Jepson C. Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Qual Life Res 2003; 12: 599-607
27. Dolan P, Kahneman D. Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Economic Journal 2008; 118: 215-34
28. Dolan P, Olsen JA. Distributing health care: economic and ethical issues. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 2002
29. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Social value judgements: principles for the development of NICE guidance [2nd edition: draft for public consultation]. London: NICE, 2007
30. Fitzpatrick R, Bowling A, Gibbons E, et al. A structured review of PROMs in relation to selected chronic conditions, perceptions of quality of care and carer impact. Oxford: National Centre for Health Outcomes Development, 2006
31. Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec JA, et al. A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med 2005; 60 (7): 1571-82
32. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2004
33. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Review of the guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice-.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/devnicetech/ technologyappraisalprocessguides/guidetothemethodsoftechnologyappraisal.jsp [Accessed 2008 Jul 1]
34. McCabe C, Stevens K, Roberts J, et al. Health state values from the HUI-2 descriptive system: results from a UK survey. Health Econ 2005; 14 (3): 231-44
35. Brazier JE, Ratcliffe J, Tsuchiya A, et al. Measuring and valuing health for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007
36. Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, et al. Multiattribute utlity function for a comprehensive health status classification system: Health Utility Index mark 2. Med Care 1996; 34 (7): 702-22
37. Stevens K. Working with children to develop dimensions for a preference based generic paediatric health related quality of life measure [08/04 HEDS discussion paper series]. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 2008
38. US Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures. Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Rockville (MD): US FDA, 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/5460dft.htm [Accessed 2008 Jul 1]
39. Coast J. Reprocessing data to form QALYs. BMJ 1992; 305: 87-90
40. Brazier J, Yang Y, Tsuchiya A. Review of methods for mapping between condition specific measures onto generic measures of health: report prepared for the Office of Health Economics. London: OHE, 2007
41. Claxton C. Exploring uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 781-98
42. Ara R, Brazier J. Deriving an algorithm to convert the eight mean SF-36 dimension scores into a mean EQ-5D preference-based score from published studies (where patient level data are not available). Value Health. Epub 2008 May 16
43. Sugar CA, Sturm R, Lee TT, et al. Empirically defined health states for depression from the SF-12. Health Serv Res 1998; (33): 911-28
44. Barton GR, Bankart J, Davis AC, et al. Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2004; 3: (2): 103-5
45. Espallargues M, Czoski-Murray C, Bansback N, et al. The impact of age related macular degeneration on health state utility values. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46: 4016-23
46. Tengs TO, Wallace A. One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care 2000; 38 (6): 583-637
47. Stevenson MD, Brazier JE, Calvert NW, et al. Description of an individual patient methodology for calculating the cost-effectiveness of treatments for osteoporosis in women. J Oper Res Soc 2005; 56: 214-21
48. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care 2005; 43: 203-20
49. Karnon J, Brennan A, Pandor A, et al. Modelling the long term cost effectiveness of clopidogrel for the secondary prevention of occlusive vascular events in the UK. Curr Med Res Opin 2005; 21 (1): 91-12
50. Kaltenthaler E, Shackley P, Stevens K, et al. A systematic review and economic evaluation of computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for depression and anxiety. Health Technol Assess 2002; 6 (22): 1-89