Incorporating process utility into quality adjusted life years: A systematic review of empirical studies

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 31, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 677-691

  Brennan, Victoria K ^a   Dixon, Simon ^b  

^a RTI HEALTH SOLUTIONS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUSTRALIA; CALCULATION; CANADA; CANCER SCREENING; CONVENIENCE SAMPLE; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEM; EUROPE; HEALTH; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS UTILITY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REVIEW; SCREENING; SHORT FORM 36; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS;

EID: 84881162364     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-013-0066-1     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Oliver A. Prioritizing health care: IS "Health" always an appropriate maximand? Med Decis Making. 2004;24:272.
2. Sussex J, Towse A, Devlin N. Operationalizing value-based pricing of medicines: a taxonomy of approaches. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31:1-10.
3. Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010;96:5-21.
4. Brouwer WBF, Culyer AJ, van Exel NJA, et al. Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism. J Health Econ. 2008;27(2):325-38.
5. Gerard K, Mooney G. QALY league tables: handle with care. Health Econ. 1993;2:59-64.
6. Mooney G. Beyond health outcomes: the benefits of health care. Health Care Anal. 1998;6(2):99-1.
7. McAlister D. Putting health economics into quality. Public Money Manage. 1994;14(2):15-22.
8. Donaldson C, Shackley P. Does "process utility" exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:699-707.
9. Swan J, Sainfort F. Process utility for imaging in cerebrovascular disease. Acad Radiol. 2003;10(3):266-74.
10. Opmeer BC, de Borgie CA, Mol BW, Bossuyt PM. Assessing preferences regarding healthcare interventions that involve non-health outcomes: an overview of clinical studies. Patient. 2010;3(1):1-10.
11. Nord E, Pinto-Prades JL, Richardson J, et al. Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes. Health Econ. 1999;8:25-39.
12. Tsuchiya A. QALYs and ageism: philosophical theories and age weighting. Health Econ. 2000;9:57-68.
13. Dolan P, Tsuchiya A. Determining the parameters in social welfare function using stated preference data: an application to health. Appl Econ. 2011;43(18):1466-4283.
14. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
15. Lloyd A, Nafees B, Bernett AH, et al. Willingness to pay for improvements in chronic long-acting insulin therapy in individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Therap. 2011;33(9):1258-67.
16. Cook J, Richardson J, Street A. A cost utility analysis of treatment options for gallstone disease: methodological issues and results. Health Econ. 1994;3:157-68.
17. Schmier JK, Palmer CS, Flood EM, et al. Utility assessments of opioid treatment for chronic pain. Pain Med. 2002;3(3):218-30.
18. Osborne RH, De Abreu Lourenço R, Dalton A, Houltram J, et al. Quality of life related to oral versus subcutaneous iron chelation: a time trade-off study. Value Health. 2007;10(6):51-6.
19. Osborne RH, Dalton A, Hertel J, Schrover R, Smith DK. Health-related quality of life advantage of long-acting injectable antipsychotic treatment for schizophrenia: a time-trade-off study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:35.
20. Kauf TL, Roskell N, Shearer A, et al. A predictive model of health state utilities for HIV patients in the modern era of highly active antiretroviral therapy. Value Health. 2008;11(7):1144-53.
21. Chancellor J, Aballéa S, Lawrence A, et al. Preferences of patients with diabetes mellitus for inhaled versus injectable insulin regimens. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(3):217-34.
22. Polster M, Zanutto E, McDonald S, et al. A comparison of preferences for two GLP-1 products - liraglutide and exenatide - for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. J Med Econ. 2010;13(4):655-61.
23. Boye KS, Matza LS, Walter KN, et al. Utilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12(3):219-30.
24. Birch S, Melnikow J, Kuppermann M. Conservative versus aggressive follow up of mildly abnormal Pap smears: testing for process utility. Health Econ. 2003;12(10):879-84.
25. Howard K, Salkeld G, McCaffery K, et al. HPV triage testing or repeat Pap smear for the management of atypical squamous cells (ASCUS) on Pap smear: is there evidence of process utility? Health Econ. 2008;17(5):593-605.
26. Cairns J, Shackley P, Hundley V. Decision making with respect to diagnostic testing: a method of valuing the benefits of antenatal screening. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:61.
27. Swan JS, Fryback DG, Lawrence WF, et al. A time-trade-off method for cost effectiveness models applied to radiology. Med Decis Making. 2000;20:79.
28. Swan JS, Lawrence WF, Roy J. Process utility in breast biopsy. Med Decis Making. 2006;26(4):347-59.
29. Salkeld G, Quine S, Cameron ID. What constitutes success in preventive health care? A case study in assessing the benefits of hip protectors. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59(8):1593-601.
30. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ. 1986;5:1-30.
31. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:4.
32. Stouthard MEA, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ, Barendregt JJ, Kramer PG, van de Water HPA, Gunning-Schepers LJ, van der Maas PJ. Disability weights for diseases in the Netherlands. Rotterdam: Erasmus University; 1997.
33. Boyd NF, Sutherland HJ, Heasman DL, et al. Whose utilities for decision analysis? Med Dec Making. 1990;10:58.
34. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996.
35. Brazier J, Akehurst R, Brennan A, Dolan P, Claxton K, McCabe C, Sculpher M, Tsuchyia A. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4(4):201-8.
36. Gafni A, Zylak CJ. Ionic versus non-ionic contrast media: a burden or a bargain? Can Med Assoc J. 1990;143(6):475-8.
37. Brazier JE, Rowen D. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 11: Alternatives to EQ-5D for generating health state utility values. 2011. http://www.nicedsu. org.uk. Accessed 18 Sept 2012.
38. Krabbe P, Stouthard M, Essink-Bot M, et al. The effect of adding a cognitive dimension to the EuroQol Multiattribute Health-Status Classification System. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(4):293-301.
39. Yang Y, Brazier J, Tsuchiya. The effect of adding a 'sleep' dimension to EQ-5D. In: Health Economists' Group meeting. January 2008.
40. Brazier J, Rowen D, Tsuchiya A, Yang Y, Young T. What a pain: adding a generic dimension to a condition-specific preference-based measure. In: HESG Abstract. 2010.
41. Steine S, Finset A, Laerum E. A new, brief questionnaire (PEQ) developed in primary health care for measuring patients' experience of interaction, emotion and consultation outcome. Family Practice. 2001;18:410-8.
42. Baron J. Biases in the quantitative measurement of values for public decisions. Psychol Bull. 1997;122:72-88.
43. Dolan P, Kahneman D. Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Econ J. 2008;118(525):215-34.