Standardization and regulatory guidelines may inhibit science and reduce the usefulness of analyses based on the application of preference-based measures for policy decisions

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 316-319

  Feeny, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; NOTE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT;

HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE);

EID: 84875691439     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12468793     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Mavranezouli I, Brazier JE, Rowen D, Barkham M. Estimating a preference-based index from the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure (CORE-OM): valuation of CORE-6D. Med Decis Making. 2013 ; 33: 381-395
2. London: NICE ; 2008 :
3. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997 ; 35: 1095-108
4. van Nooten FE, Koolman X, Brouwer WB. The influence of subjective life expectancy on health state valuations using a 10 year TTO. Health Econ. 2009 ; 18: 549-58
5. Stiggelbout AM, Kiebert GM, Kievit J, Leer JW, Habbema JD, De Haes JC. The "utility" of the time trade-off method in cancer patients: feasibility and proportional Trade-off. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995 ; 48: 1207-14
6. Lin MR, Yu WY, Wang SC. Examination of assumptions in using time tradeoff and standard gamble utilities in individuals with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 ; 93: 245-52
7. Dolan P, Roberts J. To what extent can we explain time trade-off values from other information about respondents?. Soc Sci Med. 2002 ; 54: 919-29
8. Garau M, Shah KK, Mason AR, Wang Q, Towse A, Drummond MF. Using QALYs in cancer: a review of the methodological limitations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011 ; 29: 673-85
9. Chapman GB, Elstein AS, Kuzel TM, et al. Prostate cancer patients' utilities for health states: how it looks depends on where you stand. Med Decis Making. 1988 ; 18: 278-86
10. Grann VR, Panageas KS, Whang W, Antman KH, Neugut AI. Decision analysis of prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy in BRCA1-positive or BRCA-2 positive patients. J Clin Oncol. 1988 ; 16: 979-85
11. Grann VR, Jacobson JS, Sundarajan V, Alberta SM, Troxel AB, Neugut AI. The quality of life associated with prophylactic treatments for women with BRCA1/2 mutations. Cancer J Sci Am. 1999 ; 5: 283-92
12. Robinson A, Dolan P, Williams A. Valuing health status using VAS and TTO: what lies behind the numbers?. Soc Sci Med. 2011 ; 45: 1289-97
13. FeenyD, Using patient reported outcome measures to improve health and health care. In: GrayDRNoyesS, eds. Patient Reported Outcomes to Improve Performance, Value and Productivity: Symposium Proceedings, Victoria, December 9, 2010; pp 83-9; published online 16 May 2012. Available from: URL: www.effectiveproductivity.info/resources/category/37-patient-reported-outcomes- measures
14. Brazier JE, Yanag 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: 212-25
15. Brazier J, Tsuchyia A. Preference-based condition-specific measures of health: what happens to cross programme comparability?. Health Econ. 2010 ; 19: 125-9
16. Guyatt GH, King DR, Feeny DH, Stubbing D, Goldstein RS. Generic and specific measurement of health-related quality of life in a clinical trial of respiratory rehabilitation. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 ; 52: 187-92
17. Wiebe S, Guyatt G, Weaver B, Matijevic S, Sidwell C. Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific quality-of-life instruments. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003 ; 56: 52-60
18. Fryback DG, Dunham NC, Palta P, et al. U.S. norms for six generic health-related quality of life indexes from the National Health Measurement Study. Med Care. 2007 ; 45: 1162-70
19. Luo N, Chew L-H, Fong K-Y, et al. A comparison of the EuroQol-5D and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 in patients with rheumatic disease. J Rheumatol. 2003 ; 30: 2268-74
20. Feeny D, Wu L, Eng K. Comparing Short Form 6D, standard gamble, and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 utility scores: results from total hip arthroplasty patients. Qual Life Res. 2004 ; 13: 1659-70
21. Feeny D, Spritzer K, Hays RD, et al. Agreement about identifying patients who change over time: cautionary results in cataract and heart failure patients. Med Decis Making. 2012 ; 32: 273-86
22. Lee H, Park E, Kim HJ, Choi J, Kim H. Cost-utility analysis of cochlear implants in Korea using different measures of utility. Acta OtoLaryngol. 2006 ; 126: 817-23
23. Criteria of candidacy for unilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults II: cost-effectiveness analysis. Ear Hear. 2004 ; 25: 336-60
24. Langfitt JT, Vickrey BG, McDermott MP, et al. Validity and responsiveness of generic preference-based HRQOL instruments in chronic epilepsy. Qual Life Res. 2006 ; 15: 899-914
25. Henry D. Economic analysis as an aid to subsidisation decisions: the development of Australian guidelines for pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomics. 1992 ; 1: 54-67
26. 2 nd ed.Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment; November1997. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment ; 1997 :
27. Gold MR Siegel JE Russell LB Weinstein MC, ed. New York: Oxford University Press ; 1996 :
28. Laupacis A. Inclusion of drugs in provincial drug benefit programs: who is making these decisions, and are they the right ones?. CMAJ. 2002 ; 166: 44-7
29. Laupacis A., Incorporating economic evaluations into decision-making: The Ontario Experience. Med Care. 2005:43, 15-19.