Populating an economic model with health state utility values: Moving toward better practice

Value in Health

Volumn 13, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 509-518

  Ara, Roberta ^a   Brazier, John E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

decision models; health economics methods; health surveys; health state utility; methodology

Indexed keywords

AGE DISTRIBUTION; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; COHORT ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH STATUS; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; SCORING SYSTEM;

EID: 77955396965     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00700.x     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisals. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/ B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf [Accessed December 1, 2009 DG, Lawrence WG. Dollars may not buy as many QALYs as we think: A problem with defining quality of life adjustments. MDM 1997 17 : 276 284.
2. Ward S, Lloyd Jones M, Pandor A, et al. A systematic review and economic evaluation of statins for the prevention of coronary events. Health Technol Assess 2007 11 : 1 160, iii iv.
3. Bansback N, Ara R, Ward S, et al. Statin therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: a cost-effectiveness and value-of-information analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2009 27 : 25 37.
4. Bond DE, Freedberg KA. Combining utility measurements exploring different approaches. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 2001 9 : 507 516.
5. Flanagan W, McIntosh CN, Le Petit C, Berthelot JM. Deriving utility scores for co-morbid conditions: a test of the multiplicative model for combining individual condition scores. Population Health Metrics 2006 4 : 13.
6. Fu AZ, Kattan MW. Utilities should not be multiplied: evidence from the preference-based scores in the United States. Med Care 2008 46 : 984 990.
7. Dale W, Basu A, Elstein A, Meltzer D. Predicting utility ratings for joint health states from single health states in prostate cancer: empirical testing of 3 alternative Theories. MDM 2008 28 : 102 112.
8. Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 2000 17 : 479 500.
9. Ara R, Tumur I, Pandor A, et al. Ezetimibe for the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2008 12 : iii, xi xiii. 1 212.
10. Joint Health Surveys Unit of Social and Community Planning Research and University College London, Health Survey for England. 2003 [Computer File] (3rd ed.). Colchester, Essex : UK Data Archive distributor 2005. SN: 5098.
11. Joint Health Surveys Unit of Social and Community Planning Research and University College London, Health Survey for England. 2006 [Computer File] (3rd ed.). Colchester, Essex : UK Data Archive distributor 2008.
12. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ 1996 5 : 141 154.
13. Ara R, Brazier J, Young T. Health related quality of life by age, gender or history of cardiovascular disease: results from the Health Survey for England 2003 and 2006. Discussion paper. Available from: http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/ scharr/sections/heds/discussion.html [Accessed December 1, 2009].
14. Basu A, Dale W, Elstein A, Meltzer D. A linear index for predicting joint health states utilities from single health states utilities. Health Econ 2009 18 : 403 419.
15. Saarni SI, Suvisaaria J, Sintonenb H, et al. The health-related quality-of-life impact of chronic conditions varied with age in general population. J Clinical Epidemiology 2007 60 : 1288 1297.
16. Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon J, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2007.