Revisiting United States valuation of EQ-5D states

Journal of Health Economics

Volumn 30, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 1057-1063

  Craig, Benjamin M ^a,b   Busschbach, Jan J V ^c,d  

^a H LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^c ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^d Viersprong Institute for Studies on Personality Disorders VISPD   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Health related quality of life; Time trade off

Indexed keywords

DATA SET; ECONOMETRICS; HEALTH STATUS; MODEL VALIDATION; QUALITY OF LIFE; SOCIOECONOMIC INDICATOR; TRADE-OFF; VALUATION;

ADULT; AGED; ANGULAR RANDOM UTILITY MODEL; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EPISODIC RANDOM UTILITY MODEL; EQ 5D; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INSTANT RANDOM UTILITY MODEL; MALE; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; UNITED STATES; VALIDITY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; UNITED STATES; VALUE OF LIFE; YOUNG ADULT;

UNITED STATES;

WHITE TIP DIE-BACK PHYTOPLASMA;

EID: 80052844327     PISSN: 01676296     EISSN: 18791646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.07.009     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Bleichrodt H. A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Econ. 2002, 11(5):447-456.
2. Charro F.T., Busschbach J.J.V., et al. Some considerations about negative values for the EQ 5D health states. EQ-5D Concepts and Methods: A Developmental History 2005, 240. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. P. Kind, R. Brooks, R. Rabin (Eds.).
3. Cook J.R., Heyse J.F. Use of an angular transformation for ratio estimation in cost-effectiveness analysis. Stat. Med. 2000, 19(21):2989-3003.
4. Coons, S. J., J. A. Johnson, et al. (2005). U.S. Valuation of the EuroQol EQ-5D Health States. From http://www.ahrq.gov/rice/EQ5Dproj.htm.
5. Craig B.M. The duration effect: a link between TTO and VAS values. Health Econ. 2009, 18(2):217-225.
6. Craig B.M, Busschbach J.J. The episodic random utility model unifies time trade-off and discrete choice approaches in health state valuation. Popul. Health Metr. 2009, 7:3.
7. Craig B.M., Busschbach J.J., et al. Keep it simple: ranking health states yields values similar to cardinal measurement approaches. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2009, 62(3):296-305.
8. Craig B.M, Busschbach J.J., et al. Modeling ranking, time trade-off, and visual analog scale values for EQ-5D health states: a review and comparison of methods. Med. Care 2009, 47(6):634-641.
9. Craig B.M., Oppe M. From a different angle: a novel approach to health valuation. Soc. Sci. Med. 2009.
10. Doctor J.N, Miyamoto J.M. Deriving quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from constant proportional time tradeoff and risk posture conditions. J. Math. Psychol. 2003, 47(5-6):557-567.
11. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med. Care 1997, 35(11):1095-1108.
12. Drummond M.F Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes 2005, Oxford University Press, Oxford; New York.
13. Efron B., Tibshirani R. An Introduction to the Bootstrap 1993, Chapman & Hall, New York.
14. Gudex C. Time Trade-Off User Manual: Props and Self-Completion Methods. Report of the Centre for Health Economics 1994, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
15. Lamers L.M. The transformation of utilities for health states worse than death: consequences for the estimation of EQ-5D value sets. Med. Care 2007, 45(3):238-244.
16. Parker, T. (2005). 2004 County Typology Codes. Measuring Rurality Retrieved 12/17/2009, 2009. From http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Rurality/Typology/.
17. Patrick D.L., Starks H.E., et al. Measuring preferences for health states worse than death. Med. Decis. Making 1994, 14(1):9-18.
18. Shaw J.W, Iannacchione V.G., et al. Derivation of a new set of sampling weights for the US EQ-5D valuation study data. Qual. Life Res. 2005, 14(9):2019.
19. Shaw J.W., Johnson J.A., et al. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med. Care 2005, 43(3):203-220.
20. StataCorp Stata Statistical Software: Release 10 2008, StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas, USA.
21. Stinnett A.A., Paltiel A.D. Estimating CE ratios under second-order uncertainty: the mean ratio versus the ratio of means. Med. Decis. Making 1997, 17(4):483-489.
22. Torrance G.W Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Economic Planning Sci. 1976, 10:129-136.
23. Torrance G.W., Thomas W.H., et al. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv. Res. 1972, 7(2):118-133.
24. US Congress. (1999). Healthcare Research and Quality Act Retrieved 12/17/2009, 2009. From http://www.ahrq.gov/hrqa99.pdf.
25. Wald A. Fitting of straight lines if both variables are subject to error. Ann. Math. Stat. 1940, 11:284-300.
26. Williams A. A measurement and valuation of health: a chronicle. Discussion Paper. York, Centre for Health Economics, York Health Economics Consortium. NHS Centre for Reviews & Dissemination 1995, 136:1-53. University of York.