Comparison of FACT- and EQ-5D-based utility scores in cancer

Value in Health

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 305-311

  Pickard, A Simon ^a   Ray, Saurabh ^b   Ganguli, Arijit ^b   Cella, David ^c  

^a Second City Outcomes Research   (United States)

^b ABBOTT LABORATORIES   (United States)

^c NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

cancer; EQ 5D; health state utilities; health related quality of life; utility assessment

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER THERAPY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; EQ 5D; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT INVENTORY; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF CANCER THERAPY; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEOPLASM; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ADAPTATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHMS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NEOPLASMS; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PATIENTS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84858656973     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.11.029     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: the basics. Value Health 2009;12(Suppl. 1):S5-9.
2. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 2001;33:337-43. (Pubitemid 32675374)
3. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35:1095-108. (Pubitemid 127453463)
4. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care 2005;43:203-20. (Pubitemid 40353904)
5. Pickard AS, Wilke CT, Lin HW, Lloyd A. Health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 2007;25:365-84. (Pubitemid 46744468)
6. 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.
7. Webster K, Cella D, Yost K. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Measurement System: properties, applications, and interpretation. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003;1:79.
8. Dobrez D, Cella D, Pickard AS, et al. Estimation of patient preferencebased utility weights from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General. Value Health 2007;10:266-72. (Pubitemid 47077251)
9. Kind P, Macran S. Eliciting social preference weights for Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung health states. Pharmacoeconomics 2005;23:1143-53. (Pubitemid 41633403)
10. Pickard AS, De Leon MC, Kohlmann T, et al. Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Med Care 2007;45:259-63.
11. Cheung YB, Thumboo J, Gao F, et al. Mapping the English and Chinese versions of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General to the EQ-5D utility index. Value Health 2009;12:371-6.
12. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ 2004;13: 873-84. (Pubitemid 39264234)
13. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 1982;5: 649-55. (Pubitemid 13149996)
14. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Jaeshke R. How to develop and validate a new health-related quality of life instrument. In: Spilker B, ed., Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996:chap 6.
15. Hays RD, Anderson R, Revicki D. Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures. Qual Life Res 1993; 2:441-9. (Pubitemid 24035216)
16. Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D. Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007;5:70.
17. Ubel PA, Richardson J, Menzel P. Societal value, the person trade-off, and the dilemma of whose values to measure for cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 2000;9:127-36. (Pubitemid 30148159)
18. Boyd NF, Sutherland HJ, Heasman KZ, et al. Whose utilities for decision analysis? Med Decis Making 1990;10:58-67. (Pubitemid 20086097)
19. Marra CA, Marion SA, Guh DP, et al. Not all "quality-adjusted life years" are equal. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:616-24. (Pubitemid 46711077)
20. Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Feeny DH. Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Qual Life Res 2005; 14:207-19. (Pubitemid 40249095)
21. Pickard AS, Wang Z, Walton SM, Lee TA. Are decisions using costutility analyses robust to choice of SF-36/SF-12 preference-based algorithm? Health Qual Life Outcomes 2005;3:11.
22. Nan L, Johnson JA, Shaw JW, Coons SJ. A comparison of EQ-5D index scores derived from the US and UK population-based scoring functions. Med Decis Making 2007;27:321-6. (Pubitemid 46801745)
23. Shrive FM, Ghali WA, Johnson JA, et al. Use of the U.S. and U.K. scoring algorithm for the EuroQol-5D in an economic evaluation of cardiac care. Med Care 2007;45:269-73.
24. Brazier J, Green C, McCabe C, Stevens K. Use of visual analog scales in economic evaluation. Exp Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2003;3:293-302. (Pubitemid 36722808)
25. Shaw JW, Pickard AS, Yu S, et al. A median model for predicting United States population-based EQ-5D health state preferences. Value Health 2010;13:278-88.
26. Ubel PA, Nord E, Gold M, et al. Improving value measurement in costeffectiveness analysis. Med Care 2000;38:892-901.
27. Sneeuw KC, Sprangers MA, Aaronson NK. The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease. J Clin Epidemiol 2002;55: 1130- 43.
28. Sprangers MA, Sneeuw KC. Are healthcare providers adequate raters of patients' quality of life-perhaps more than we think? Acta Oncol 2000;39:5-8. (Pubitemid 30216610)