Longitudinal association of preference-weighted health-related quality of life measures and substance use disorder outcomes

Addiction

Volumn 106, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 507-515

  Pyne, Jeffrey M ^a,b   Tripathi, Shanti ^b   French, Michael ^c   McCollister, Kathryn ^d   Rapp, Richard C ^e   Booth, Brenda M ^b  

^a CENTRAL ARKANSAS VETERANS HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI MILLER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness analysis; Cost utility analysis; Health related quality of life; Quality of Well Being Scale; SF 12; SF 6D; Substance use disorder

Indexed keywords

ADDICTION; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS; DRUG DEPENDENCE TREATMENT; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MALE; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; STANDARD; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; UNITED STATES; VALIDATION STUDY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; QUESTIONNAIRES; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT CENTERS; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 79551651762     PISSN: 09652140     EISSN: 13600443     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03299.x     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Gold M. R., Siegel J. E., Russell L. B., Weinstein M. C., editors. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.; 1996.
2. Drummond M., McGuire A., editors. Economic Evaluation in Health Care. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Inc.; 2006.
3. Neumann P. J., Rosen A. B., Greenberg D., Olchanski N. V., Pande R., Chapman R. H. etal. Can we better prioritize resources for cost-utility research? Med Decis Making 2005; 25: 429-36.
4. Mortimer D., Segal L. Economic evaluation of interventions for problem drinking and alcohol dependence: cost per QALY estimates. Alcohol Alcohol 2005; 40: 549-55.
5. Barnett P. G., Zaric G. S., Brandeau M. L. The cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine maintenance therapy for opiate addiction in the United States. Addiction 2001; 96: 1267-78.
6. Barnett P. G. The cost-effectiveness of substance abuse treatment. Curr Psychiatry Rep 1999; 1: 166-71.
7. Gunther O. H., Roick C., Angermeyer M. C., Konig H. H. Responsiveness of EQ-5D utility indices in alcohol-dependent patients. Drug Alcohol Depend 2008; 92: 291-5.
8. De Jong C. A., Roozen H. G., van Rossum L. G., Krabbe P. F., Kerkhof A. J. High abstinence rates in heroin addicts by a new comprehensive treatment approach. Am J Addict 2007; 16: 124-30.
9. Pyne J. M., Booth B. M., Farahati F., Tripathi S., Smith G. R., Marques P. R. Preference-weighted health status associated with substance use-disorders treatment. J Stud Alcohol 2006; 67: 436-44.
10. Pyne J. M., French M., McCollister K., Tripathi S., Rapp R., Booth B. Preference-weighted health-related quality of life measures and substance use disorder severity. Addiction 2008; 103: 1320-9.
11. Saarni S. I., Joutsenniemi K., Koskinen S., Suvisaari J., Pirkola S., Sintonen H. etal. Alcohol consumption, abstaining, health utility, and quality of life-a general population survey in Finland. Alcohol Alcohol 2008; 43: 376-86.
12. Petrie D., Doran C., Shakeshaft A., Sanson-Fisher R. The relationship between alcohol consumption and self-reported health status using the EQ5D: evidence from rural Australia. Soc Sci Med 2008; 67: 1717-26.
13. UKATT Research Team. Cost effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems: findings of the randomized UK Alcohol Treatment Trial (UKATT). BMJ 2005; 331: 554-9.
14. Dijkgraaf M. G., van der Zanden B. P., de Borgie C. A., Blanken P., van Ree J. M., van den Brink W. Cost utility analysis of co-prescribed heroin compared with methadone maintenance treatment in heroin addicts in two randomised trials. BMJ 2005; 330: 1297.
15. Harris A. H., Gospodarevskaya E., Ritter A. J. A randomized trial of the cost effectiveness of buprenorphine as an alternative to methadone maintenance treatment for heroin dependence in a primary care setting. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23: 77-91.
16. Walters D., Connor J. P., Feeney G. F., Young R. M. The cost effectiveness of naltrexone added to cognitive-behavioral therapy in the treatment of alcohol dependence. J Addict Dis 2009; 28: 137-44.
17. Wilson I. B., Cleary P. D. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA 1995; 273: 59-65.
18. Rapp R. C., Otto A. L., Lane D. T., Redko C., McGatha S., Carlson R. G. Improving linkage with substance abuse treatment using brief case management and motivational interviewing. Drug Alcohol Depend 2008; 94: 172-82.
19. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV TR), 4th edn. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2000.
20. McLellan A. T., Kushner H., Metzger D., Peters R., Smith I., Grissom G. etal. The Fifth Edition of the Addiction Severity Index. J Subst Abuse Treat 1992; 9: 199-213.
21. Brazier J., Roberts J., Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002; 21: 271-92.
22. Brazier J., Usherwood T., Harper R., Thomas K. Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 1115-28.
23. Drummond M. F., O'Brien B., Stoddart G. L., Torrance G. W. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.; 1997.
24. Brazier J. E., Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care 2004; 42: 851-9.
25. Kaplan R. M., Sieber W. J., Ganiats T. G. The Quality of Well-Being Scale: comparison of the interviewer-administered version with the self-administered questionnaire. Psychol Health 1997; 12: 783-91.
26. Andresen E. M., Rothenberg B. M., Kaplan R. M. Performance of a self-administered mailed version of the Quality of Well-Being (QWB-SA) questionnaire among older adults. Med Care 1998; 36: 1349-60.
27. Sieber W. J., David K. M., Adams J. E., Kaplan R. M., Ganiats T. G. Assessing the impact of migraine on health-related quality of life: an additional use of the quality of well-being scale-self-administered. Headache 2000; 40: 662-71.
28. Pyne J. M., Sieber W. J., David K., Kaplan R. M., Rapaport M. H., Williams D. K. Use of the Quality of Well-Being self-administered version (QWB-SA) in assessing health-related quality of life in depression patients. J Affect Disord 2003; 76: 237-47.
29. Pyne J. M., Sullivan G., Kaplan R., Williams D. K. Comparing the sensitivity of generic effectiveness measures with symptom improvement in persons with schizophrenia. Med Care 2003; 41: 208-17.
30. Pyne J. M., Patterson T. L., Kaplan R. M., Gillin J. C., Koch W. L., Grant I. Assessment of the quality of life of patients with major depression. Psychiatr Serv 1997; 48: 224-30.
31. Patterson T. L., Kaplan R. M., Grant I., Semple S. J., Moscona S., Koch W. L. etal. Quality of well-being in late-life psychosis. Psychiatr Res 1996; 63: 169-81.
32. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
33. Williams E. C., Palfai T., Cheng D. M., Samet J. H., Bradley K. A., Koepsell T. D. etal. Physical health and drinking among medical inpatients with unhealthy alcohol use: a prospective study. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2010; 34: 1257-65.
34. Kaplan R. M., Bush J. W., Berry C. C. Health status: types of validity and the index of well-being. Health Serv Res 1976; 11: 478-507.
35. Kaplan R. M. The minimally clinically important difference in generic utility-based measures. J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2005; 2: 91-7.
36. Walters S. J., Brazier J. E. What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 4.
37. Green C., Brazier J., Deverill M. Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17: 151-65.
38. Naglie G., Tomlinson G., Tansey C., Irvine J., Ritvo P., Black S. E. etal. Utility-based Quality of Life measures in Alzheimer's disease. Qual Life Res 2006; 15: 631-43.
39. Torrance G. W., Furlong W., Feeny D., Boyle M. Multi-attribute preference functions. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7: 503-20.
40. EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199-208.
41. Hawthorne G., Richardson J., Osborne R. The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1999; 8: 209-24.
42. Patrick D. L., Sittampalam Y., Somerville S. M., Carter W. B., Bergner M. A cross-cultural comparison of health state values. Am J Public Health 1985; 75: 1402-7.
43. Hadorn D. C. The problem of discrimination in health care priority setting. JAMA 1992; 268: 1454-9.
44. Boyd N., Sutherland H., Heasman K., Tritchler D. L., Cummings B. J. Whose utilities for decision analysis? Med Decis Making 1990; 10: 58-67.
45. Smith G., Burnam M. A., Mosley C., Hollenberg J., Mancino M., Grimes W. Reliability and validity of the substance abuse outcomes module. Psychiatr Serv 2006; 57: 1452-60.