A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: Feasibility study of the 'lead time' approach

Health Economics

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 348-361

  Devlin, Nancy J ^a   Tsuchiya, Aki ^b   Buckingham, Ken ^d   Tilling, Carl ^c  

^a Office of Health Economics   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

constant proportionality; EQ 5D; states worse than dead; TTO

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EQ 5D; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TIME TRADE OFF; UNITED KINGDOM;

ADULT; AGED; ATTITUDE TO DEATH; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, ECONOMIC; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS;

EID: 79951548591     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.1596     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Buckingham K, Devlin N,. 2009. A note on the nature of utility in time and health and implications for cost utility analysis. Social Science and Medicine 68: 362-367.
2. Devlin N, Tsuchiya A, Buckingham K, Tilling C, 2009. Does the value of quality of life depend of duration? Economics Discussion Paper 09/07, City University, London (forthcoming).
3. Dolan P,. 1997. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care 35 (11): 1095-1108. (Pubitemid 127453463)
4. Drummond MF, Sculpher M, Torrance G, O'Brien B, Stoddart G,. 2005. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes (3rd edn). Oxford University Press: Oxford.
5. Lamers LM,. 2007. The transformation of utilities for states worse than death: consequences for the estimation of EQ-5D value sets. Medical Care 45 (3): 238-244.
6. Lamers LM, McDonnell J, Stalmeier PFM, Krabbe PFM, Van Busschbach J,. 2006. The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Economics 15 (10): 1121-1132. (Pubitemid 44596379)
7. Ling-Hsiang C, Kind P,. 2008. Ordinal or cardinal? The VAS strikes back. Manuscript,.
8. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. 2008. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisals. NICE, London, Publication reference N1618.
9. Patrick D, Starks H, Cain K, Uhlmann RF, Pearlman R,. 1994. Measuring preferences for health states worse than death. Medical Decision Making 14: 9-18. (Pubitemid 24032677)
10. Richardson J, Hawthorne G,. 2001. Negative utility scores and evaluating the AQoL all worst health state. Monash Working Paper 113.
11. Robinson A, Dolan P, Williams A,. 1997. Valuing health status using VAS and TTO: what lies behind the numbers? Social Science and Medicine 45: 1289-1297. (Pubitemid 27387166)
12. Robinson A, Spencer A,. 2006. Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead. Health Economics 15: 393-402.
13. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ,. 2005. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 model. Medical Care 43: 203-220. (Pubitemid 40353904)
14. Stalmeier PFM, Busschbach JJV, Lamers LM, Krabbe PFM,. 2005. The gap effect: discontinuities in preferences around dead. Health Economics 14 (7): 679-685. (Pubitemid 40960224)
15. Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N,. 2007. EQ-5D Valuation Sets: An Inventory, Comparative Review and Users' Guide. EuroQol Foundation. Springer: Rotterdam.
16. Tilling C, Devlin N, Tsuchiya A, Buckingham K,. 2010. Protocols for time tradeoff valuations of health states worse than dead-a literature review. Medical Decision Making, forthcoming.
17. Torrance GW,. 1982. Multi-attribute utility theory as a method of measuring social preferences for health states in long-term care. In Values and Long Term Care, Kane R, Kane R, (eds). Lexington Books Division, D.C. Health Publisher: Lexington, MA; 127-156.
18. Torrance GW, Thomas W, Sackett D,. 1972. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programmes. Health Services Research 7: 118-133.
19. Tsuchiya A, Brazier B, Roberts J,. 2006. Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ5D and the SF6D value sets in the UK. Journal of Health Economics 25 (2): 334-346. (Pubitemid 43288929)