Dependency and health utilities in stroke: Data to inform cost-effectiveness analyses

European Stroke Journal

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 70-76

  Ali, Myzoon ^a   MacIsaac, Rachael ^a   Quinn, Terence J ^b   Bath, Philip M ^c   Veenstra, David L ^d   Xu, Yaping ^e   Brady, Marian C ^f   Patel, Anita ^g   Lees, Kennedy R ^h   Lees, K R ⁱ   Alexandrov, A ⁱ   Bath, P M ⁱ   Bluhmki, E ⁱ   Bornstein, N ⁱ   Chen, C ⁱ   Claesson, L ⁱ   Davis, S M ⁱ   Donnan, G ⁱ   Diener, H C ⁱ   Fisher, M ⁱ   Ginsberg, M ⁱ   Gregson, B ⁱ   Grotta, J ⁱ   Hacke, W ⁱ   Hennerici, M G ⁱ   Hommel, M ⁱ   Kaste, M ⁱ   Lyden, P ⁱ   Marler, J ⁱ   Muir, K ⁱ   Venketasubramanian, N ⁱ   Sacco, R ⁱ   Shuaib, A ⁱ   Teal, P ⁱ   Wahlgren, N G ⁱ   Warach, S ⁱ   Weimar, C ⁱ   more..

^a QUEEN ELIZABETH UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b GLASGOW ROYAL INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^e GENENTECH INC   (United States)

^f GLASGOW CALEDONIAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^g QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^h UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ NONE

Author keywords

cost effectiveness; EQ 5D; health utility; modified Rankin Scale; quality of life; Stroke; trial

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; BRAIN ISCHEMIA; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DISEASE SEVERITY; EUROPEAN QUALITY OF LIFE SCORE; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH UTILITY; HUMAN; LEAST SQUARE ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH STROKE SCALE; NERVOUS SYSTEM PARAMETERS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANKIN SCALE; RATING SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM; VALIDATION PROCESS; VIRTUAL INTERNATIONAL STROKE TRIALS ARCHIVE; WILCOXON SIGNED RANKS TEST;

EID: 85021437654     PISSN: 23969873     EISSN: 23969881     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/2396987316683780     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Feigin VL, Forouzanfar MH, Krishnamurthi R. Global and regional burden of stroke during 1990–2010: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2014; 383: 245–254.
2. Tengs TO, Yu M, Luistro E. Health-related quality of life after stroke: a comprehensive review. Stroke 2001; 32: 964–972.
3. Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW. Multi-attribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care 2002; 40: 113–128.
4. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Osbourne R. The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1999; 8: 209–224.
5. Brazier J and Rowen D. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 11: alternatives to EQ-5D for generating health state utility values, http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/TSD11%20Alternatives%20to%20EQ-5D_final.pdf (2015, accessed 23 October 2015)
6. Post P, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP. The utility of health states after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Stroke 2001; 32: 1425–1429.
7. Sprigg N, Selby J, Fox L. Very low quality of life after acute stroke data from the efficacy of nitric oxide in stroke trial. Stroke 2013; 44: 3458–3462.
8. Rivero-Arias O, Ouellet M, Gray A. Mapping the modified Rankin scale (mRS) measurement into the Generic EuroQol (EQ-5D) Health Outcome. Med Decis Making 2010; 30: 341–354.
9. Whynes D, Sprigg N, Selby J. Testing differential item functioning within the EQ-5D. Med Decis Making 2013; 33: 252–260.
10. Ali M, Bath P, Brady M. Development, expansion and use of a stroke clinical trials resource for novel exploratory analyses. Int J Stroke 2012; 7: 133–138.
11. Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin NJ. EQ-5D value sets: inventory, comparative review and user guide, Netherlands: Springer, 2007.
12. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35: 1095–1108.
13. 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: 203–220.
14. Badia X, Roset M, Herdman M. A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Med Decis Making 2001; 21: 7–16.
15. Lamers LM, McDonnell J, Stalmeier PFM. The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Econ 2006; 15: 1121–1132.
16. Greiner W, Claes C, Busschbach JJ. Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population. Eur J Health Econ 2005; 6: 124–130.
17. Jelsma J, Hansen K, de Weerdt W. How do Zimbabweans value health states? Popul Health Metr 2003; 1: 11.
18. Tsuchiya A, Ikeda S, Ikegami N. Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ 2002; 11: 341–353.
19. Golicki D, Jakubczyk M, Niewada M. Valuation of EQ-5D health states in Poland: first TTO-based social value set in Central and Eastern Europe. Value Health 2010; 13: 289–297.
20. Lee Y-K, Nam H-S, Chuang L-H. South Korean time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states: modeling with observed values for 101 health states. Value Health 2009; 12: 1187–1193.
21. Liu GG, Wu H, Li M. Chinese time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Value Health 2014; 17: 597–604.
22. Luo N, Wang P, Thumboo J. Valuation of EQ-5D-3L Health states in Singapore: modeling of time trade-off values for 80 empirically observed health states. Pharmacoeconomics 2014; 32: 495–507.
23. Viney R, Norman R, King MT. Time trade-off derived EQ-5D weights for Australia. Value Health 2011; 14: 928–936.
24. Longworth L, Rowen D. Mapping to obtain EQ-5D utility values for use in NICE health technology assessments. Value Health 2013; 16: 202–210.
25. Dakin H, Petrou S, Haggard M. Mapping analyses to estimate health utilities based on responses to the OM8-30 Otitis Media Questionnaire. Qual Life Res 2010; 19: 65–80.
26. Longworth L and Rowen D. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 10: The use of mapping methods to estimate health state utility values, http://www.nicedsu.org.uk (2011, accessed 23 October 2015)
27. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB. Cost effectiveness in health and medicine, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
28. Jansen SJ, Stiggelbout AM, Walker PP. Unstable preferences: a shift in valuation or an effect of the elicitation procedure? Med Decis Making 2000; 20: 62–71.