Estimating a preference-based index from the clinical outcomes in routine evaluation-outcome measure (CORE-OM): Valuation of CORE-6D

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 381-395

  Mavranezouli, Ifigeneia ^a,b   Brazier, John E ^a   Rowen, Donna ^a   Barkham, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

condition specific; CORE 6D; CORE OM; health state valuation; mental health; preference based index; time trad eoff

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT;

DATA COLLECTION; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE);

EID: 84875698200     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12464431     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996 ; 37 (1). 53-72
2. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002 ; 21 (2). 271-92
3. Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care. 2002 ; 40 (2). 113-28
4. Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, Harper R, Booth A. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 1999 ; 3 (9). 1-164
5. Brazier J, Tsuchiya A. Preference-based condition-specific measures of health: what happens to cross programme comparability?. Health Econ. 2010 ; 19 (2). 125-9
6. Brazier J. Measuring and valuing mental health for use in economic evaluation. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008 ; 13: 70-5
7. Chisholm D, Healey A, Knapp M. QALYs and mental health care. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1997 ; 32 (2). 68-75
8. Knapp M, Mangalore R. The trouble with QALYs.... Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc. 2007 ; 16 (4). 289-93
9. Jacobs R Investigating Patient Outcome Measures in Mental Health. York, UK: Centre for Health Economics, University of York ; 2009 :
10. Barkham M, Margison F, Leach C, et al. Service profiling and outcomes benchmarking using the CORE-OM: toward practice-based evidence in the psychological therapies. Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measures. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2001 ; 69 (2). 184-96
11. Barkham M, Stiles WB, Connell J, et al. Effects of psychological therapies in randomized trials and practice-based studies. Br J Clin Psychol. 2008 ; 47: 397-415
12. Barkham M, Gilbert N, Connell J, Marshall C, Twigg E. Suitability and utility of the CORE-OM and CORE-A for assessing severity of presenting problems in psychological therapy services based in primary and secondary care settings. Br J Psychiatry. 2005 ; 186: 239-46
13. Evans C, Connell J, Barkham M, et al. Towards a standardised brief outcome measure: psychometric properties and utility of the CORE-OM. Br J Psychiatry. 2002 ; 180: 51-60
14. Mavranezouli I, Brazier JE, Young TA, Barkham M. Using Rasch analysis to form plausible health states amenable to valuation: the development of CORE-6D from a measure of common mental health problems (CORE-OM). Qual Life Res. 2011 ; 20 (3). 321-33
15. Evans C, Connell J, Barkham M, Marshall C, Mellor-Clark J. Practice-based evidence: benchmarking NHS primary care counselling services at national and local levels. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2003 ; 10 (6). 374-88
16. Rasch G Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ; 1960 :
17. Tennant A, Conaghan PG. The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: what is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper?. Arthritis Rheum. 2007 ; 57 (8). 1358-62
18. Guttman LA Measurement and Prediction. Stouffer SA Guttman LA Schuman EA, ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press ; 1950: 78-80.
19. Bond TG, Fox CM Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates ; 2006 :
20. Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978 ; 43 (4). 561-73
21. Tennant A, McKenna SP, Hagell P. Application of Rasch analysis in the development and application of quality of life instruments. Value Health. 2004 ; 7: S22-6
22. McTaggart-Cowan HM, Brazier JE, Tsuchiya A. Clustering Rasch results: a novel method for developing rheumatoid arthritis states for use in valuation studies. Value Health. 2010 ; 13 (6). 787-95
23. Sundaram M, Smith MJ, Revicki DA, Elswick B, Miller LA. Rasch analysis informed the development of a classification system for a diabetes-specific preference-based measure of health. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 ; 62 (8). 845-56
24. Young T, Yang Y, Brazier JE, Tsuchiya A, Coyne K. The first stage of developing preference-based measures: constructing a health-state classification using Rasch analysis. Qual Life Res. 2009 ; 18 (2). 253-65
25. Young TA, Yang Y, Brazier JE, Tsuchiya A. The use of Rasch analysis in reducing a large condition-specific instrument for preference valuation: the case of moving from AQLQ to AQL-5D. Med Decis Making. 2011 ; 31 (1). 195-210
26. Brazier JE, Rowen D, Mavranezouli I, et al. Developing and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition specific measures (and other patient based measures of outcome). Health Technol Assess. 2012 ; 16 (32). 1-114
27. Brazier JE, Ratcliffe J, Salomon J, Tsuchiya A Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press ; 2007 :
28. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ. 1996 ; 5 (2). 141-54
29. Gudex C Time Trade-Off User Manual: Props and Self-Completion Methods. York, UK: Centre for Health Economics, University of York; ; 1994 :
30. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997 ; 35 (11). 1095-108
31. 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 (6). 907-17
32. Kind P, Hardman G, Macran S UK population norms for EQ-5D. York, UK: Centre for Health Economics Discussion Paper Series, University of York ; 1999 :
33. Yang Y, Brazier JE, Tsuchiya A, Young TA. Estimating a preference-based index for a 5-dimensional health state classification for asthma derived from the asthma quality of life questionnaire. Med Decis Making. 2011 ; 31 (2). 281-91
34. Yang Y, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Coyne K. Estimating a preference-based single index from the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire. Value Health. 2009 ; 12 (1). 159-66
35. Brazier J, Czoski-Murray C, Roberts J, Brown M, Symonds T, Kelleher C. Estimation of a preference-based index from a condition-specific measure: the King's Health Questionnaire. Med Decis Making. 2008 ; 28 (1). 113-26
36. Brazier J, Rowen D, Tsuchiya A, Yang Y, Young T. The impact of adding a generic dimension to a condition-specific preference-based measure. Soc Sci Med. 2011 ; 73 (2). 245-53
37. Tennant A, Pallant JF. Unidimensionality matters! (A tale of two smiths?). Rasch Measurement Transactions. 2006 ; 20 (1). 1048-51
38. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence ; 2008 :
39. Tilling C, Devlin N, Tsuchiya A, Buckingham K. Protocols for time tradeoff valuations of health states worse than dead: a literature review. Med Decis Making. 2010 ; 30 (5). 610-19
40. Dolan P. Effect of age on health state valuations. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000 ; 5 (1). 17-21
41. Robinson A, Dolan P, Williams A. Valuing health status using VAS and TTO: what lies behind the numbers?. Soc Sci Med. 1997 ; 45 (8). 1289-97
42. Dolan P, Roberts J. To what extent can we explain time trade-off values from other information about respondents?. Soc Sci Med. 2002 ; 54 (6). 919-29
43. Rowen D, Brazier J The Oxford Handbook of Health Economics. Glied S Smith PC, ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press ; 2011: 788-813.
44. McManus S, Meltzer H, Brugha T, Bebbington P, Jenkins R Adult psychiatric morbidity in England, 2007: results of a household survey. Leeds, UK: The NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care ; 2009 :
45. Dowie J. Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition-specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions. Health Econ. 2002 ; 11 (1). 1-8
46. Guyatt G. Commentary on Jack Dowie, "Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition-specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions. " Health Econ. 2002 ; 11 (1). 9-12
47. Feeny D. Commentary on Jack Dowie, "Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition-specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions. " Health Econ. 2002 ; 11 (1). 13-6
48. Brazier J, Fitzpatrick R. Measures of health-related quality of life in an imperfect world: a comment on Dowie. Health Econ. 2002 ; 11 (1). 17-9
49. Brazier J. Is the EQ-5D fit for purpose in mental health?. Br J Psychiatry. 2010 ; 197 (5). 348-9
50. Lamers LM, Bouwmans CA, van Straten A, Donker MC, Hakkaart L. Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities in mental health patients. Health Econ. 2006 ; 15 (11). 1229-36
51. van de Willige G, Wiersma D, Nienhuis FJ, Jenner JA. Changes in quality of life in chronic psychiatric patients: a comparison between EuroQol (EQ-5D) and WHOQoL. Qual Life Res. 2005 ; 14 (2). 441-51
52. Moock J, Kohlmann T. Comparing preference-based quality-of-life measures: results from rehabilitation patients with musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or psychosomatic disorders. Qual Life Res. 2008 ; 17 (3). 485-95
53. Papaioannou D, Brazier J, Parry G. How valid and responsive are generic health status measures, such as EQ-5D and SF-36, in schizophrenia? A systematic review. Value Health. 2011 ; 14 (6). 907-20
54. Gilbody SM, House AO, Sheldon TA Outcome Measurement in Psychiatry. York, UK: University of York ; 2003 :