The role of patient preferences in cost-effectiveness analysis: A conflict of values?

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 27, Issue 9, 2009, Pages 705-712

  Brazier, John E ^a   Dixon, Simon ^a   Ratcliffe, Julie ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH PROGRAM; NOTE; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS, PHARMACEUTICAL; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; RESEARCH;

EID: 70349274341     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/11314840-000000000-00000     Document Type: Note

References (20)

1. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care pro-grammes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005
2. Coulter A. Partnerships with patients: the pros and cons of shared clinical decision-making. J Health Serv Res Policy 1997; 2 (2): 112-121
3. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes two to tango). Soc Sci Med 1997; 44: 681-692
4. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2008
5. Birch S, Gafni A. On being NICE in the UK: guidelines for technology appraisal for the NHS in England and Wales. Health Econ 2002; 11: 185-191
6. Brooks R, on behalf of the EuroQol Group. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37: 53-72
7. Dolan P. Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35 (11): 1095-1108
8. Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Decision modelling for health economics evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006
9. Kanis JA, Brazier JE, Stevenson M, et al. Treatment of established osteoporosis: a systematic review and cost utility analysis. Health Technol Assess 2002; 6: 29: 1-146
10. Brazier JE, Akehurst R, Brennan A, et al. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2005; 4 (4): 201-208
11. Mukuria C, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A. Exploring the relationship between health and happiness: a comparison across studies of different conditions using the SF-6D and EQ-5D [online]. Available from URL: http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/ content/1/c6/04/39/44/Clara.pdf [Accessed 2009 May 18]
12. Roberts J, Dolan P. To what extent do people prefer health states with higher values? A note on evidence from the EQ-5D valuation set. Health Econ 2004; 13 (7): 733-737
13. Kharroubi SA, Brazier JE, O'Hagan A. Modelling covariates for the SF-6D standard gamble health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Soc Sci Med 2007; 64: 1242-1252
14. Mehrez A, Gafni A. Quality-adjusted life years, utility theory, and healthy-years equivalents. Med Decis Making 1989; 9 (2): 142-149
15. Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. An experimental test of a theoretical foundation for rating scale valuations. Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 208-216
16. Ratcliffe J, Buxton M. Patient's preferences regarding the process and outcomes of life saving technology: an application of conjoint analysis to liver transplantation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999; 15: 340-351
17. Towers I, Spencer A, Brazier J. Healthy year equivalents versus quality-adjusted life years: the debate continues. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2005; 5 (3): 245-254
18. Sculpher M, Gafni A. Recognizing diversity in public preferences: the use of preference sub-groups in costeffectiveness analysis. Health Econ 2001; 10 (4): 317-324
19. Dixon S. Including patient choice in cost effectiveness decision rules. HEDS Discussion Paper 07/07. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 2007
20. Bradley C. Patient preferences and randomised trials. Lancet 1996; 347: 1118-1119