Theoretical foundation of patient v. population preferences in calculating QALYs

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2010, Pages

  Gandjour, Afschin ^a,b,c  

^a PENNINGTON BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

^b RICE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

Author keywords

community preferences; cost effectiveness analysis; patient preferences

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; PATIENT ATTITUDE; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; THEORETICAL MODEL;

HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PATIENT PREFERENCE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS;

EID: 77954911797     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10370488     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press ; 1996.
2. Dolan P. Whose preferences count ? Med Decis Making. 1999 ; 19: 482-486.
3. Nord E. Cost-Value Analysis in Health Care: Making Sense Out of QALYs. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press ; 1999.
4. Menzel P., Dolan P., Richardson J., Olsen JA The role of adaptation to disability and disease in health state valuation: a preliminary normative analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2002 ; 55: 2149-2158.
5. 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.
6. Brazier J., Akehurst R., Brennan A., et al. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states ? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005 ; 4: 201-208.
7. Robinson A., Thomson RG ; Decision Analysis in Routine Treatments Study (DARTS) team. The potential use of decision analysis to support shared decision making in the face of uncertainty: the example of atrial fibrillation and warfarin anticoagulation. Qual Health Care. 2000 ; 9: 238-244.
8. Montgomery AA, Harding J., Fahey T. Shared decision making in hypertension: the impact of patient preferences on treatment choice. Fam Pract. 2001 ; 18: 309-313.
9. Drummond M., Brixner D., Gold M., Kind P., McGuire A., Nord E. ; Consensus Development Grou p. Toward a consensus on the QALY Value Health. 2009 ; 12 (suppl 1). S31-5.
10. Dolders MG, Zeegers MP, Groot W., Ament A. A meta-analysis demonstrates no significant differences between patient and population preferences. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 ; 59: 653-664.
11. Russell LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE, Daniels N., Weinstein MC The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996 ; 276: 1172-1177.
12. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal (issue date: June 2008). http://www.nice.org.uk/ media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf. Accessed 17 July 2009.
13. Rawls J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press ; 1971.
14. Daniels N. Just Healthcare. New York: Cambridge University Press ; 1985.
15. Harsanyi JC Cardinal utility in welfare economics and in the theory of risk-bearing. J Polit Econ. 1953 ; 61: 434-435.
16. Harsanyi JC Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility. J Polit Econ. 1955 ; 63: 309-321.
17. Dworkin R. What is equality? Part 2: Equality of resources. Philos Public Aff. 1981 ; 10: 283-345.
18. Regan T. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: California University Press ; 1983.
19. Weymark JA On Kolm's Use of Epistemic Counterfactuals in Social Choice Theory. Discussion Paper No. 95-11. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, Department of Economics ; 1995.
20. Harsanyi JC Rational Behavior and Bargaining Equilibrium in Games and Social Situations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press ; 1977.
21. Harsanyi JC Morality and the theory of rational behavior. In: Sen A, Williams B, eds. In: Utilitarianism and Beyond. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press ; 1982.
22. Gandjour A., Lauterbach KW Utilitarian theories reconsidered: common misconceptions, more recent developments, and health policy implications. Health Care Anal. 2003 ; 11: 229-244.
23. Sen AK On the foundations of welfare economics: utility, capability, and practical reason. In: Farina F, Hahn F, Vannucci S, eds. Ethics, Rationality, and Economic Behaviour. Oxford, UK: Clarendon; 1996.
24. Preference utilitarianism. In: Encyclopaedia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/474652/preferenceUtilitarianism. Accessed 30 December 2008.
25. Hare RM Moral Thinking. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press ; 1981.
26. Hare JE God and Morality: A Philosophical History. New York: John Wiley ; 2009.
27. Farber D. The Problematics of the Pareto Principle. Express Preprint. Series, Paper 698. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Electronic Press ; 2005.
28. Sen AK The Tanner lectures: the standard of living. In: Hawthorn G, ed. The Standard of Living. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1987.
29. Sen AK Why health equity? Health Econ. 2002 ; 11: 659-666. 30. Murray CJ, Acharya AK Understanding DALYs (disability-adjusted life years). J Health Econ. 1997 ; 16: 703-730.
30. Kovacs M., Beck AT Maladaptive cognitive structures in depression. Am J Psychiatry. 1978 ; 135: 525-533.
31. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4 th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association ; 1994.
32. Mooney G., Russell E. Equity in health care: the need for a new economics paradigm? In: Scott A, Maynard A, Elliott R, eds. Advances in Health Economics. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 2003.
33. Nussbaum MC Symposium on Amartya Sen's philosophy: 5. Adaptive preferences and women's options. Econ Philos. 2001 ; 17: 67-88.
34. Singer P. A response to Martha Nussbaum. Presented at The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, 13 November 2002, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
35. Lelkes O. Knowing what is good for you: empirical analysis of personal preferences and the "objective good. " J Socio Econ. 2006 ; 35: 285-307.