Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: A meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities

Value in Health

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 306-309

  Peeters, Yvette ^a   Stiggelbout, Anne M ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

General population; Health status; Meta analysis; Patient preferences; Utility assessment

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EVALUATION; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; PATIENT; POPULATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; SAMPLING ERROR;

EID: 77149177948     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00610.x     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. De Wit GA, Busschbach JJV, De Charro FT. Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count? Health Econ 2000 9 : 109 126.
2. Dolders MGT, Zeegers MPA, Groot W, Ament A. A meta-analysis demonstrates no significant differences between patient and population preferences. J Clin Epidemiol 2006 59 : 653 664.
3. Bremner KE, Chong CA, Tomlinson G, et al. A review and meta-analysis of prostate cancer utilities. Med Decis Making 2007 27 : 288 298.
4. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997 35 : 1095 1108.
5. Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 System. Med Care 2002 40 : 113 128.
6. Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. Practical Meta-Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications, Inc., 2001.
7. Smith DM, Sherriff RL, Damschroder L, et al. Misremembering colostomies? Former patients give lower utility ratings than do current patients. Health Psychol 2006 25 : 688 695.
8. Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. Methods of Meta-Analysis Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings. Newbury Park, CA : Sage, 1990.
9. Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H. Comprehensive meta analysis 2.2.046 2007. Englewood, NJ : Biostat.
10. Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Orlando, FL : Academic Press, 1985.
11. Duval S, Tweedie R. A nonparametric "trim and fill" method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 2000 95 : 89 98.
12. van Osch SM. Construction of TTO utilities. 82-101. Leiden, Leiden University, 2007.
13. Stiggelbout AM, de Vogel-Voogt E. Health state utilities: a framework for studying the gap between the imagined and the real. Value Health 2008 11 : 76 87.
14. Insinga RP, Fryback DG. Understanding differences between self-ratings and population ratings for health in the EuroQOL. Qual Life Res 2003 12 : 611 619.
15. Dolan P. Whose preferences count? Med Decis Making 1999 19 : 482 486.
16. Bender R, Bunce C, Clarke M, et al. Attention should be given to multiplicity issues in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2008 61 : 857 865.