Health condition impacts in a nationally representative cross-sectional survey vary substantially by preference-based health index

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 36, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 264-274

  Hanmer, Janel ^a   Cherepanov, Dasha ^b   Palta, Mari ^c   Kaplan, Robert M ^d   Feeny, David ^c,e   Fryback, Dennis G ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b PARTNERSHIP FOR HEALTH ANALYTIC RESEARCH   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^f Health Utilities Incorporated   (Canada)

Author keywords

cost utility analysis; quality of life; utility inconsistencies; utility measurement

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AGED; CHRONIC DISEASE; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; ECONOMICS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOLOGY; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SEX DIFFERENCE; STANDARDS; UNITED STATES; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CHRONIC DISEASE; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SEX FACTORS; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84952878222     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15599546     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Gold MR, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, ed. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
2. Miller W, Robinson LA, Lawrence RS., Valuing Health for Regulatory Analysis. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006.
3. Brauer CA, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, Neumann PJ., Trends in the measurement of health utilities in published cost-effectiveness analyses. Value Health. 2006; 9 (4): 213-8.
4. Franks P, Hanmer J, Fryback DG,. Relative disutilities of 47 risk factors and conditions assessed with seven preference-based health status measures in a national U.S. sample: toward consistency in cost-effectiveness analyses. Med Care. 2006; 44: 478-85.
5. Fryback DG, Dunham N, Palta M, et al. The National Health Measurement Study: simultaneous U.S. norms for six generic health-related quality-of-life instruments. Med Care. 2007; 45: 1162-70.
6. National Archive of Computerized Data on Aging. United States National Health Measurement Study, 2005-2006. http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACDA/studies/23263?geography%5b0%5d=United+States&paging.startRow=226. Accessed 10 February 2015.
7. Rabin R, de Charro F., EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001; 33: 337-43.
8. 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.
9. Erickson P,. Evaluation of a population-based measure of quality of life: the Health and Activity Limitation Index (HALex). Qual Life Res. 1998; 7: 101-14.
10. Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, et al. Multiattribute and singleattribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Med Care. 2002; 40: 113-28.
11. Feeny D, Torrance G, Furlong W., Health Utilities Index. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Press; 1996.
12. Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Barr RD, Zhang Y, Wang Q., Multi-attribute preference functions for a comprehensive health status classification system: Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care. 1996; 34: 702-22.
13. Kaplan RM, Sieber WJ, Ganiats TG., The Quality of Well-Being Scale: comparison of the interviewer-administered version with a self-administered questionnaire. Psychol Health. 1997; 12: 783-91.
14. Andresen EM, Rothenberg BM, Kaplan RM., Performance of a self-administered mailed version of the Quality of Well-Being (QWB-SA) questionnaire among older adults. Med Care. 1998; 36: 1349-60.
15. Brazier JE, Roberts J., The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004; 42: 851-9.
16. 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.
17. Revicki DA, Feeny D, Hunt TL, Cole B., Analyzing oncology clinical trials data using the Q-TWiST method: clinical importance and sources for health state preference data. Qual Life Res. 2006; 15: 411-23.
18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Health Interview Survey. 2005 Data Release. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/nhis-2005-data-release.htm. Accessed 10 February 2015.
19. Fryback DG, Palta M, Cherepanov D, Bolt D, Kim JS., Comparison of 5 health-related quality-of-life indexes using item response theory analysis. Med Decis Making. 2010; 30: 5-15.
20. Laupacis A., Inclusion of drugs in provincial drug benefit programs: who is making these decisions, and are they the right ones? Can Med Assoc J. 2002; 166: 44-47.
21. Laupacis A., Incorporating economic evaluations into decision-making: the Ontario experience. Med Care. 2005; 43 (Suppl.):II-15-II-19.
22. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2013. http://publications.nice.org.uk/pmg9. Accessed July 2015.
23. Kopec JA, Willison KD., A comparative review of four preference-weighted measure of health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003; 56: 317-25.
24. Feeny D., Standardization and regulatory guidelines may inhibit science and reduce the usefulness of analyses based on the application of preference-based measures for policy decisions. Med Decis Making. 2013; 33: 316-19.
25. Paz SH, Liu H, Fongwa MN, Morales LS, Hays RD., Readability estimates for commonly used health-related quality of life surveys. Qual Life Res. 2009; 18: 889-900.
26. Cherepanov D, Palta M, Fryback DG., Underlying dimensions of the five health-related quality-of-life measures used in utility assessment evidence from the National Health Measurement Study. Med Care. 2010; 48: 718-25.
27. Palta M, Chen HY, Kaplan RM, Feeny D, Cherepanov D, Fryback DG., Standard error of measurement of 5 health utility indexes across the range of health for use in estimating reliability and responsiveness. Med Decis Making. 2011; 31: 260-9.
28. Raisch DW, Feeney P, Goff DC Jr, et al. Baseline comparison of three health utility measures and the feeling thermometer among participants in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Trial. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2012; 11: 35.