Valuing health for clinical and economic decisions: Directions relevant for rheumatologists

Journal of Rheumatology

Volumn 38, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 1770-1775

  Harrison, Mark J ^a,b   Bansback, Nick J ^c   Marra, Carlo A ^d   Drummond, Michael ^e   Tugwell, Peter S ^f   Boonen, Annelies ^g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^c ST PAUL S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^g MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Outcome; Quality of life; Quality adjusted life years; Rheumatology

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CONFERENCE PAPER; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; EUROQOL 5D SCORE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH UTILITY INDEX VERSIONS 2; HEALTH UTILITY INDEX VERSIONS 3; HUMAN; MEDICAL OUTCOME STUDY SHORT FORM 6D; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT IN RHEUMATOLOGY CLINICAL TRIALS; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; RHEUMATOLOGY; SCORING SYSTEM; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ARTHRITIS, RHEUMATOID; CONGRESSES AS TOPIC; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; INTERNET; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHYSICIANS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RHEUMATOLOGY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 79961123411     PISSN: 0315162X     EISSN: 14992752     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.110404     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (58)

1. Kirwan J, Boonen A, Harrison ML, Hewlett S, Wells G, Singh JA, et al. OMERACT 10 patient perspective virtual campus: Valuing health; measuring outcomes in RA fatigue, RA sleep, arthroplasty, and systemic sclerosis; and the clinical significance of changes in health. J Rheumatology 2011;38:1728-34.
2. Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: the basics. Value Health 2009;12 Suppl 1:S5-9.
3. Lipscomb J, Drummond M, Fryback D, Gold M, Revicki D. Retaining, and enhancing, the QALY. Value Health 2009;12 Suppl 1:S18-26.
4. Elwyn G, O'Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ 2006;333:417.
5. Elwyn G, O'Connor AM, Bennett C, Newcombe RG, Politi M, Durand MA, et al. Assessing the quality of decision support technologies using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi). PloS One 2009;4:e4705.
6. Evans R, Elwyn G, Edwards A, Watson E, Austoker J, Grol R. Toward a model for field-testing patient decision-support technologies: a qualitative field-testing study. J Med Internet Res 2007;9:e21.
7. Bansback N, Harrison M, Brazier J, Davies L, Kopec J, Marra C, et al. Health state utility values: a description of their development and application for rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Rheum 2008;59:1018-26.
8. Harrison MJ, Davies LM, Bansback NJ, Ingram M, Anis AH, Symmons DP. The validity and responsiveness of generic utility measures in rheumatoid arthritis: a review. J Rheumatol 2008;35:592-602.
9. Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME. Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med Care 2003;41:791-801.
10. Joore M, Brunenberg D, Nelemans P, Wouters E, Kuijpers P, Honig A, et al. The impact of differences in EQ-5D and SF-6D utility scores on the acceptability of cost-utility ratios: results across five trial-based cost-utility studies. Value Health 2010;13:222-9.
11. Marra CA, Marion SA, Guh DP, Najafzadeh M, Wolfe F, Esdaile JM, et al. Not all "quality-adjusted life years" are equal. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:616-24.
12. Boonen A, Maetzel A, Drummond M, Suarez-Almazor M, Harrison M, Welch V, et al. The OMERACT Initiative towards a reference approach to derive QALY for economic evaluations in rheumatology. J Rheumatol 2009;36:2045-9.
13. Torrance GW. Utility measurement in healthcare: the things I never got to. Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24:1069-78.
14. Dolan P, Olsen JA. Distributing health care: economics and ethical issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002.
15. Layard R, Glaister S. Cost-benefit analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994.
16. Gyrd-Hansen D. Willingness to pay for a QALY: theoretical and methodological issues. Pharmacoeconomics 2005;23:423-32.
17. O'Brien B, Gafni A. When do the "dollars" make sense? Toward a conceptual framework for contingent valuation studies in health care. Med Decis Making 1996;16:288-99.
18. Brazier J. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
19. Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med 1977;296:716-21.
20. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986;5:1-30.
21. Gold MR, Patrick DL, Torrance GW, Fryback DG, Hadorn DC, Kamlet MS. Identifying and valuing outcomes. In: Gold MR, editor. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996:82-134.
22. Lenert L, Kaplan RM. Validity and interpretation of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life. Med Care 2000;38 Suppl:II138-50.
23. Nord E. Methods for quality adjustment of life years. Soc Sci Med 1992;34:559-69.
24. Richardson J. Cost utility analysis: what should be measured? Soc Sci Med 1994;39:7-21.
25. Patrick DL, Erickson P. Health status and health policy. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993.
26. Bakker CH, Rutten-van Molken M, van Doorslaer E, Bennett K, van der Linden S. Health related utility measurement in rheumatology: an introduction. Patient Educ Couns 1993;20:145-52.
27. Parkin D, Devlin N. Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost-utility analysis? Health Econ 2006;15:653-64.
28. Brazier J, McCabe C. 'Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in CUA' by Parkin and Devlin. A response: 'yes there is a case, but what does it add to ordinal data?'. Health Econ 2007;16:645-7; discussion 9-51.
29. McCabe C, Stevens K. Visual analogue scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states. Health Economics and Decision Science. Discussion paper series 2004; [Internet. Accessed April 8, 2011.] Available from: http://www.shef.ac.uk/content/1/c6/01/87/47/04-6FT.pdf
30. Harrison MJ, Boonen A, Tugwell P, Symmons DP. Same question, different answers: a comparison of global health assessments using visual analogue scales. Qual Life Res 2009;18:1285-92.
31. Krabbe PF, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ. The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods. Soc Sci Med 1997;45:1641-52.
32. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.
33. Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Making 2001;21:329-34.
34. Russell LB, Siegel JE, Daniels N, Gold MR, Luce BR, Mandelblatt JS. Cost-effectiveness analysis as a guide to resource allocation in health: roles and limitations. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996.
35. Carr AJ, Gibson B, Robinson PG. Measuring quality of life: Is quality of life determined by expectations or experience? BMJ 2001;322:1240-3.
36. Rapkin BD, Schwartz CE. Toward a theoretical model of quality-of-life appraisal: Implications of findings from studies of response shift. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004;2:14.
37. Schwartz CE, Rapkin BD. Reconsidering the psychometrics of quality of life assessment in light of response shift and appraisal. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004;2:16.
38. Brazier J, Akehurst R, Brennan A, Dolan P, Claxton K, McCabe C, et al. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2005;4:201-8.
39. Gandjour A. Theoretical foundation of patient v. Population preferences in calculating QALYs. Med Decis Making 2010;30:E57-63.
40. Staley K. INVOLVE. Exploring impact: Public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research: National Institute for Health Research; 2009. [Internet. Accessed April 8, 2011.] Available from: http://www.invo.org.uk/pdfs/ Involve-Exploring-Impactfinal28.10.09.pdf
41. Brazier J, Tsuchiya A. Preference-based condition-specific measures of health: what happens to cross programme comparability? Health Econ 2010;19:125-9.
42. Young TA, Rowen D, Norquist J, Brazier JE. Developing preference-based health measures: using Rasch analysis to generate health state values. Qual Life Res 2010;19:907-17.
43. Guillemin F. The value of utility: assumptions underlying preferences and quality adjusted life years. J Rheumatol 1999;26:1861-3.
44. Marra CA, Esdaile JM, Guh D, Kopec JA, Brazier JE, Koehler BE, et al. A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care 2004;42:1125-31.
45. Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec JA, Shojania K, Offer R, Brazier JE, et al. A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med 2005;60:1571-82.
46. Brazier JE, Yang Y, Tsuchiya A, Rowen DL. A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur J Health Econ 2010;11:215-25.
47. Beresniak A, Russell AS, Haraoui B, Bessette L, Bombardier C, Duru G. Advantages and limitations of utility assessment methods in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2007;34:2193-200.
48. Harrison MJ, Lunt M, Verstappen SM, Watson KD, Bansback NJ, Symmons DP. Exploring the validity of estimating EQ-5D and SF-6D utility values from the Health Assessment Questionnaire in patients with inflammatory arthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010;8:21.
49. Barton GR, Sach TH, Jenkinson C, Avery AJ, Doherty M, Muir KR. Do estimates of cost-utility based on the EQ-5D differ from those based on the mapping of utility scores? Health Qual Life Outcomes 2008;6:51.
50. Bansback N, Marra C, Tsuchiya A, Anis A, Guh D, Hammond T, et al. Using the Health Assessment Questionnaire to estimate preference-based single indices in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2007;57:963-71.
51. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
52. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P, editor. Frontiers in econometrics. New York: Academic Press; 1974.
53. Bansback N, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Anis A. Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate societal health state utility values. Health Economics and Decision Science (HEDS) discussion paper. [Internet. Accessed April 8, 2011.] Available from: http://www.shef.ac.uk/scharr/sections/heds/dps-2010.html
54. McCabe C, Brazier J, Gilks P, Tsuchiya A, Roberts J, O'Hagan A, et al. Using rank data to estimate health state utility models. J Health Econ 2006;25:418-31.
55. Salomon JA. Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data. Popul Health Metr 2003;1:12.
56. McTaggart-Cowan H, O'Cathain A, Tsuchiya A, Brazier J. A qualitative study exploring the general population's perception of rheumatoid arthritis after being informed about disease adaptation. 2009 [Internet. Accessed April 8, 2011.] Available from: http://www.shef.ac.uk/content/1/c6/01/87/47/ HEDS%20DP%2009-02.pdf
57. Lynd LD, Marra CA, Najafzadeh M, Sadatsafavi M. A quantitative evaluation of the regulatory assessment of the benefits and risks of rofecoxib relative to naproxen: an application of the incremental net-benefit framework. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2010;19:1172-80.
58. Fraenkel L, Rabidou N, Wittink D, Fried T. Improving informed decision-making for patients with knee pain. J Rheumatol 2007;34:1894-8.