A comparison of patient and general population weightings of EQ-5D dimensions

Health Economics

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 363-372

  Mann, Rachel ^a,c   Brazier, John ^a   Tsuchiya, Aki ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

EQ 5D; General population value set; Hypothetical states and own states; Patient self rated health; VAS

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANXIETY DISORDER; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DEPRESSION; EQ-5D; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PATIENT MOBILITY; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SELF REPORT; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; ACUTE DISEASE; ANXIETY; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CHRONIC DISEASE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMETRY; SELF CARE; SELF CONCEPT; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; SOCIOECONOMICS; UNITED KINGDOM; WALKING DIFFICULTY;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ACUTE DISEASE; ANXIETY; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CHRONIC DISEASE; DEPRESSION; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOBILITY LIMITATION; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PSYCHOMETRICS; SELF CARE; SELF CONCEPT; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; VALUE OF LIFE;

EID: 65349083767     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.1362     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Abdalla M, Russell I. 1995. Tariffs for the Euroqol health states based on modelling individual VAS and TTO data of the York survey. In MVH Group Final Report on the Modelling of Valuation Tariffs, York, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
2. Akehurst R, Brazier JE, Mathers N et al. 2002. Health-related quality of life and cost impact of irritable bowel syndrome in a UK primary care setting. Pharmacoeconomics 20: 455-462.
3. Brazier JE, Walters SJ, Nicholl JP et al. 1996. Using the SF-36 and EuroQoL on an elderly population. Quality of Life Research 5: 195-204.
4. Brazier JE, Harper R, Munro J et al. 1999a. Generic and condition-specific outcome measures for people with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology 38: 870-877.
5. Brazier JE, Deverill M, Green C et al. 1999b. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment 3(9): 1-164
6. Brazier JE, Roberts J, Deverill M. 2002. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics 21: 271-292.
7. Brazier JE, Akehurst RL, Brennan A et al. 2005. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 4(4): 201-208.
8. De Wit GA, Busschbach JJ, De Charro FT. 2000. Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status; whose values count? Health Economics 9: 109-126.
9. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P et al. 1994. The measurement and valuation of health. First Report on the Main Survey, UK MVH Group, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
10. Drummond MF. 2001. Introducing economic and quality of life measures into clinical studies. Annals of Medicine 33: 344-349.
11. EuroQol Group. 1990. EuroQol - a new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Policy 16(3): 199-208.
12. Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW et al. 2002. Multi-attribute and single attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care 40(2): 113-128.
13. Gold ME, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. 1996. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press: New York.
14. Goodacre S, Nicholl JP, Dixon S et al. 2004. Randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a chest pain observation unit compared with routine care. British Medical Journal 328(7434): 254. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.37956.664236.EE.
15. Guyatt GH, Berman LB, Townsend M et al. 1987. A measure of quality of life in clinical trials in chronic lung disease. Thorax 42: 773-778.
16. Harper R, Brazier JE, Waterhouse JC et al. 1997. Comparison of outcomes measures of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in an out patient setting. Thorax 52: 879-887.
17. ISPOR. 2006. Eleventh Annual International Meeting, 20-24 May 2006, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
18. Menzel P, Dolan P, Richardson J et al. 2002. The role of adaptation to disability and disease in health state valuation: a preliminary normative analysis. Social Science & Medicine 55: 2149-2158.
19. Michaels JA, Campbell WB, Brazier JE et al. 2006. Randomised clinical trial, observational study and assessment of cost-effectiveness of the treatment of varicose veins (REACTIV trial). Health Technology Assessment 10(13): 1-196, iii-iv.
20. Miles J, Shevlin M. 2001. Applying Regression and Correlation: A Guide for Students and Researchers. Sage Publications: London.
21. Osbourne J, Waters E. 2002. Four assumptions of multiple regression that researchers should always test. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 8(2): 1-5.
22. Smith S, Edbrooke L. 2003. Measuring the outcomes of medical intensive care patients. Trent Research Scheme.
23. SPSS Inc. 1999. SPSS Base 10.0 for Windows User's Guide. SPSS Inc.: Chicago, IL.
24. Thomas K, MacPherson H, Ratcliffe J et al. 2005. Longer term clinical and economic benefits of offering acupuncture to patients with chronic low back pain. Health Technology Assessment 9(32): 1-126.
25. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Jepson C. 2003. Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Quality of Life Research 12: 599-607.
26. Williams A. 1995. The measurement and valuation of health: a chronicle. Discussion Paper 136, Centre for Health Economics, York Health Economics Consortium, University of York.