Identifying and Reviewing Health State Utility Values for Populating Decision Models

Evidence-Based Decisions and Economics: Health Care, Social Welfare, Education and Criminal Justice, Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 93-105

  Brazier, John ^a   Papaioannou, Diana ^a   Cantrell, Anna ^a   Paisley, Suzy ^a   Herrmann, Kirsten ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b ICF Research Branch of the World Health Organisation CC FIC   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) registry free access specialist register; Health state utility values (HSUV); Health state utility values economic evaluation, including decision models; Identifying and reviewing health state utility values for populating decision models; Lack of empirical evidence on optimal approach to searching for HSUVs data; Quality adjusted life years applicable to studies containing HSUVs data; Scoping search development of a search strategy; Searching literature for studies to measure and report HSUVs data; Synthesis and estimation of HSUVs

Indexed keywords

EID: 84870524208     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9781444320398.ch8     Document Type: Chapter

References (40)

1. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Healthcare Programmes, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
2. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. Journal of Health Economics 1986; 5(1): 1-30.
3. Brazier JE, Ratcliffe J, Tsuchiya A, Solomon J. Measuring and Valuing Health for Economic Evaluations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
4. Tengs TO, Wallace A. One thousand health-related qualityof-life estimates. Medical Care 2000; 38(6): 583-637.
5. Tosh J, Longworth L. Utility Values in NICE Technology Assessments (Health Economics and Decision Science Discussion Paper 06/09). Sheffield: University of Sheffield. Available from: www.shef.ac.uk/scharr/sections/heds/discussion.html.
6. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2008.
7. Kanis JA, Brazier JE, Stevenson M, Calvert NW, Lloyd-Jones M. Treatment of established osteoporosis: a systematic review and cost utility analysis. Health Technology Assessment 2002; 6(29): 1-146.
8. Stevenson MD, Brazier JE, Calvert NW, Lloyd-Jones M, Oakley J, Kanis JA. Description of an individual patient methodology for calculating the cost-effectiveness of treatments for osteoporosis in women. Journal of the Operational Research Society 2005; 56(2): 214-221.
9. Brazier JE, Green C, Kanis JA. A Systematic review of health state utility values for osteoporosis-related conditions. Osteoporosis International 2002; 13(10): 768-776.
10. Peasgood T, Herrmann K, Kanis JA, Brazier JE. An updated systematic review of health state utility values for osteoporosis related conditions. Osteoporosis International 2009; 20(6): 853-868.
11. Higgins JPT, Green S (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.0.1 (updated September 2008). Oxford: Cochrane Collaboration, 2008.
12. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare, 3rd edn. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 2009.
13. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.0.1 (updated September 2008). Oxford: Cochrane Collaboration, 2008.
14. InterTASC Information Specialists'Sub-Group. Search Filter Resource: quality of life sample search filter. InterTASC Information Specialists'Sub-Group, 2010. Available from: www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/intertasc/qol1.htm.
15. Paisley S, Booth A, Mensinkai S. Health-related quality of life studies. In: Etext on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Information Resources. Bethesda: US National Library of Medicine (NLM) National Information Center on Health Services Research and Healthcare Technology (NICHSR), 2005. Available from: www.nlm.nih.gov/archive//2060905/nichsr/ehta/chapter12.html.
16. Brazier JE, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics 2002; 21(2): 271-292.
17. Ara R, Brazier J. Deriving an algorithm to convert the 8 mean SF-36 dimension scores into a mean EQ-5D preference-based score from published studies (where patient level data are not available). Value in Health 2008; 11(7): 1131-1143.
18. Ara R, Brazier J. Predicting SF-6D preference-based utilities using the SF-36 health summary scores: approximating health related utilities when patient level data is not available. Value in Health, in press.
19. Brazier JE, Yang Y, Tsuchyia A, Rowen D. A review of mapping (or cross walking) from non-preference based measures of health to preference-based measures. European Journal of Health Economics 2009; 12(2): 346-353.
20. Centre for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health. CEA Registry. Boston: Tufts Medical Center, 2010. Available from: https://research.tufts-nemc.org/cear/Default.aspx.
21. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. HTA. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 2010. Available from: www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb.
22. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. NHS Economic Evaluation Database. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 2010. Available from: www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb.
23. Wiley Interscience. HEED: health economics evaluation database. Chichester: Wiley Interscience, 2010. Available from: http://heed.wiley.com.
24. EuroQol Group. EQ-5D: a standardised instrument for use as a measure of health outcome. Rotterdam: EuroQol Group. Available from: www.euroqol.org.
25. MAPI Research Institute. MAPI Institute. Lyon: MAPI Research Institute. Available from: www.mapi-institute.com/home.
26. Currie CJ, McEwan P, Peters JR, Patel TC, Dixon S. The routine collation of health outcomes data from hospital treated subjects in the Health Outcomes Data Repository (HODaR): descriptive analysis from the first 20,000 subjects. Value in Health 2005; 8(5): 581-590.
27. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses Higgins JPT, Green S (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.0.1 (updated September 2008). Oxford: Cochrane Collaboration, 2008.
28. Green C, Brazier J, Deverill M. A review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17(2): 151-165.
29. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Jepson C. Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Quality of Life Research 2003; 12(6): 599-607.
30. Dolan P. Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care 1997; 35(11): 1095-1108.
31. Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 System. Medical Care 2002; 40(2): 113-128.
32. Salkeld G, Cameron ID, Cumming RG, et al. Quality of life related to fear of falling and hip fracture in older women: a time trade-off study. British Medical Journal 2000; 320(7231): 241-246.
33. Tengs T O, Lin T H. A meta-analysis of utility estimates for HIV/AIDS. Medical Decision Making 2002; 22(6): 475-481.
34. Bremner KE, Chong CAKY, Tomlinson G, Alibhai SMH, Krahn MD. A review and meta-analysis of prostate cancer utilities. Medical Decision Making 2007; 27(3): 288-298.
35. Post PN, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP. The utility of health states after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Stroke 2001; 32(6): 1425-1429.
36. Pickard AS, Wilke CT, Lin HW, Lloyd A. Health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 2007; 26(5): 365-384.
37. Muszbek N, Thompson MM, Soong CV, Hutton J, Brasseur P, van Sambeek MRHM. Systematic review of utilities in abdominal aortic aneurysm. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 2008; 36(3): 283-289.
38. Ruchlin HS, Insinga RP. A review of health-utility data for osteoporosis: implications for clinical trial-based evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26(11): 925-935.
39. Peasgood T, Brazier JE. A Review of Utility Values in Breast Cancer (Health Economics and Decision Science Discussion Paper 07/09). Sheffield: University of Sheffield. Available from: www.shef.ac.uk/scharr/sections/heds/discussion.html.
40. Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R, et al. The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Medical Decision Making 1993; 13(2): 89-102.