Exploration of health dimensions to be included in multi-attribute health-utility assessment

International Journal for Quality in Health Care

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 52-59

  Perneger, Thomas V ^a,b   Courvoisier, Delphine S ^a,b  

^a GENEVA UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Health care; Health surveys; Health utility; Models; Outcome assessment (health care); Quality indicators; Statistical

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; DEPRESSION; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; FATIGUE; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH STATUS; HEARING; HUMAN; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SELF CARE; SELF CONCEPT; SLEEP; SWITZERLAND; UNIVERSITY; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; VISUAL STIMULATION;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; CHRONIC DISEASE; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MALE; MENTAL HEALTH; MIDDLE AGED; MOBILITY LIMITATION; PAIN; PAIN MEASUREMENT; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SELF CARE; SELF REPORT; SEX FACTORS; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; SWITZERLAND;

EID: 78751697419     PISSN: 13534505     EISSN: 14643677     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzq068     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Brooks R, EuroQoL Group. EuroQoL: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996;37:53-72.
2. Greiner W, Weijnen T, Nieuwenhuizen M et al. A single European currency for EQ-5D health states. Results from a six country study. Eur J Health Econ 2003;4:222-31.
3. Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ et al. Multi-attribute preference functions for a comprehensive health status classification system: health utilities index mark 2. Med Care 1996;34:702-22.
4. 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;40:113-28.
5. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preferencebased measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002;21:271-92.
6. Marra CA, Esdaile JM, Guh D et al. A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care 2004;42:1125-31.
7. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A et al. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ 2004;13:873-84.
8. Petrou S, Hockley C. An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Econ 2005;14:1169-89.
9. Davison SN, Jhangri GS, Feeny DH. Comparing the health utilities index mark 3 (HUI3) with the short form-36 preferencebased SF-6D in chronic kidney disease. Value Health 2009;12:340-5.
10. Søgaard R, Christensen FB, Videbaek TS et al. Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in long-lasting low back pain. Value Health 2009;12:606-12.
11. Kontodimopoulos N, Pappa E, Papadopoulos AA et al. Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status. Qual Life Res 2009;18:87-97.
12. Perneger TV, Combescure C, Courvoisier D. General population reference values for the French version of the EuroQol EQ-5D health utility instrument. Value Health 2010;13:631-5.
13. Nordlund A, Ekberg K, Kristenson M et al. EQ-5D in a general population survey-a description of the most commonly reported EQ-5D health states using the SF-36. Qual Life Res 2005;14:1099-1109.
14. Bharmal M, Thomas J. Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population. Value Health 2006;9:262-71.
15. Johnson JA, Pickard AS. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Med Care 2000;38:115-21.
16. Whynes DK, TOMBOLA group. Correspondence between EQ-5D health state classifications and EQ VAS scores. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2008;6:94.
17. Williams A. The Measurement and Valuation of Health: A Chronicle. Discussion Paper 136. York, UK: The University of York, Centre for Health Economics, 1995.
18. Krabbe PFM, Stouthard MEA, Essink-Bot ML et al. The effect of adding a cognitive dimension to the EuroQol multiattribute health-status classification system. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52:293-301.
19. Wolfs CAG, Dirksen CD, Kessels A et al. Performance of the EQ-5D and the EQ-5D+C in elderly patients with cognitive impairments. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007;5:33.
20. Parkerson GR, Gehlbach SH, Wagner EH. The Duke-UNC Health Profile: an adult health status instrument for primary care. Med Care 1981;19:806-26.
21. Hunt SM, McEwen J, McKenna SP. Measuring health status: a new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists. J R Coll Gen Pract 1985;35:185-8.
22. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB. The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 1981;19:787-805.
23. WHOQOL Group. The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): development and general psychometric properties. Soc Sci Med 1998;46: 1569-85.
24. Wu AW, Revicki DA, Jacobson D et al. Evidence for reliability, validity and usefulness of the Medical Outcomes Study HIV Health Survey (MOS-HIV). Qual Life Res 1997;6: 481-93.
25. Spitzer WO, Dobson AJ, Hall J. Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: a concise QL-Index for use by physicians. J Chron Dis 1981;34:585-97.
26. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473-83.
27. Chambers LW, Sackett DL, Goldsmith CH. Development and application of an index of social function. Health Serv Res 1976;11:430-41.
28. Nelson EC, Landgraf JM, Hays RD. The functional status of patients. How can it be measured in physicians' offices? Med Care 1998;28:1111-26.
29. Bernstein IH, Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory, 3rd edn. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc., 1994.