Utility values in National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Technology Appraisals

Value in Health

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 102-109

  Tosh, Jonathan C ^a   Longworth, Louise J ^b   George, Elisabeth ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Economic evaluation; Health related quality of life; Health state utility; UK NHS; Utility

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CLINICAL EXCELLENCE TECHNOLOGY APPRAISAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; METHODOLOGY; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; STANDARD; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS; UNITED KINGDOM;

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DATA COLLECTION; GREAT BRITAIN; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; QUALITY OF LIFE; REFERENCE STANDARDS; STATE MEDICINE; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 79952663897     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.10.015     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal [Internet]. London: The Institute; 2004. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/TAP-Methods.pdf. [Accessed December 2, 2010.]
2. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Issue date: June 2008 [Internet]. London: The Institute; 2008. Available from http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/ TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf. [Accessed December 2, 2010.]
3. Stein K, Fry A, Round A, et al. What value health?: a review of health state values used in early technology assessments for NICE. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2005;4:219-28. (Pubitemid 43242210)
4. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997;35:1095-108. (Pubitemid 127453463)
5. Sanofi-Aventis UK. Docetaxel for the adjuvant treatment of early node-positive breast cancer: Single Technology Appraisal Submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. TA109 [Internet]. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2006. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11593/33567/33567.pdf. [Accessed December 2, 2010.]
6. Darzi A. High quality care for all: NHS Next Stage Review final report. London: Department of Health; 2008.
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. Med Decis Making 2008;28:102-12.
8. 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. Popul Health Metr 2006;4:13.
9. Fu AZ, Kattan MW. Utilities should not be multiplied: evidence from the preference-based scores in the United States. Med Care 2008;46:984-90.