Use of willingness to pay to study values for pharmacotherapies for migraine headache

Medical Care

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 299-308

  Lenert, Leslie A ^a,b  

^a VA SAN DIEGO HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Computers; Headache; Internet; Migraine; Pharmacotherapy; Utility; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COMPUTER PROGRAM; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; INTERNET; MALE; MIGRAINE; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; FINANCING, PERSONAL; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; MIGRAINE DISORDERS; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOFTWARE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85047695858     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.MLR.0000044909.63278.0D     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Lipton RB, Stewart WF. Prevalence and impact of migraine. Neurol Clin 1997;15:1-13.
2. Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Von Korff M. The burden of migraine: A review of cost to society. Pharmacoeconomics 1994;6:215-221.
3. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Simon D. Work-related disability: Results from the American Migraine Study. Cephalalgia 1996;16:231-238; discussion 215.
4. Ferrari MD. The economic burden of migraine to society. Pharmacoeconomics 1998;13:667-676.
5. Hu XH, Markson LE, Lipton RB, et al. Burden of migraine in the United States: Disability and economic costs. Arch Intern Med 1999;159:813-818.
6. Lipton KB, Stewart WF, Diamond S, et al. Prevalence and burden of migraine in the United States: data from the American Migraine Study II. Headache 2001;41:646-657.
7. Schulman EA, Cady RK, Henry D, et al. Effectiveness of sumatriptan in reducing productivity loss due to migraine: Results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Mayo Clin Proc 2000;75:782-789.
8. Hu XH, Markson LE, Lipton RB, et al. Burden of migraine in the United States: Disability and economic costs. Arch Intern Med 1999:159:813-818.
9. Solomon GD. Quality-of-life assessment in patients with headache. Pharmacoeconomics 1994;6:34-41.
10. Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Stone AM, et al. Stratified care vs step care strategies for migraine: the Disability in Strategies of Care (DISC) Study: A randomized trial. JAMA 2000;284:2599-2605.
11. Goadsby PJ, Lipton RB, Ferrari MD. Migraine-current understanding and treatment. N Engl J Med 2002;346:257-270.
12. Ferrari MD, Roon KI, Lipton RB, et al. Oral triptans (serotonin 5-HT(1B/1D) agonists) in acute migraine treatment: a meta-analysis of 53 trials. Lancet 2001;358:1668-1675.
13. Ziegler DK. Opioids in headache treatment: Is there a role? Neurol Clin 1997;15:199-207.
14. O'Connor AM, Rostom A, Fiset V, et al. Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review. BMJ 1999;319:731-734.
15. Lenert L, Kaplan RM. Validity and interpretation of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life [see comments]. Med Care 2000;38(Suppl 2):II138-II150.
16. Robinson R. Cost-benefit analysis. BMJ 1993;307:924-926.
17. O'Brien BJ, Novosel S, Torrance G, et al. Assessing the economic value of a new antidepressant. A willingness-to-pay approach. Pharmacoeconomics 1995;8:34-45.
18. O'Brien BJ, Goeree R, Gafni A, et al. Assessing the value of a new pharmaceutical. A feasibility study of contingent valuation in managed care. Med Care 1998;36:370-384.
19. Thompson MS. Willingness to pay and accept risks to cure chronic disease. Am J Public Health 1986;76:392-396.
20. O'Brien B, Viramontes JL. Willingness to pay: a valid and reliable measure of health state preference? Med Decis Making 1994;14:289-297.
21. Chestnut LG, Keller LR, Lambert WE, et al. Measuring heart patients' willingness to pay for changes in angina symptoms. Med Decis Making 1996;16:65-77.
22. Stavem K. Willingness to pay: a feasible method for assessing treatment benefits in epilepsy? Seizure 1999;8:14-19.
23. Voruganti LN, Awad AG, Oyewumi LK, el al. Assessing health utilities in schizophrenia. A feasibility study. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;17:273-286.
24. Kartman B, Stalhammar NO, Johannesson M. Valuation of health changes with the contingent valuation method: a test of scope and question order effects. Health Econ 1996;5:531-541.
25. Hammit JK, Graham JD. Willingness to pay for health protection: Inadequate sensitivity to probability. J Risk Uncertainty 1999;8:33-62.
26. Federick S, Fischhoff B. Scope (in)sensitivity in elicited valuations. Risk Decis Policy 1998;3:109-123.
27. Baron J. Biases in the quantitative measurement of values for public decisions. Psychological Bull 1997;122:72-88.
28. Lenert LA, Treadwell JR. Effects on preferences of violations of procedural invariance. Med Decis Making 1999;19:473-481.
29. Souchek J, Stacks JR, Brody B, et al. A trial for comparing methods for eliciting treatment preferences from men with advanced prostate cancer: results from the initial visit. Med Care 2000;38:1040-1050.
30. Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1993.
31. Liljas B, Blumenschein K. On hypothetical bias and calibration in cost-benefit studies. Health Policy 2000;52:53-70.
32. Lenert LA, Cher DJ, Goldstein MK, et al. The effect of search procedures on utility elicitations. Med Decis Making 1998;18:76-83.
33. Von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W. Decision analysis and behavioral research. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1986.
34. Society IH. Classification and diagnostic criteria for headache, cranial neuralgias, and facial pain. Cephalagia 1988(Suppl 7):1-98.
35. Lenert LA, Agoncillo T, Nguyen M, et al. The potential validity of conducting research on headache in Internet populations. Headache 2002;42:200-203.
36. Lenert LA, Cher DJ. Use of meta-analytic results to facilitate shared decision making. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1999;6:412-419.
37. Soetikno RM, Mrad R, Pao V, et al. Quality-of-life research on the Internet: feasibility and potential biases in patients with ulcerative colitis. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1997;4:426-435.
38. Treadwell JR, Soetikno RM, Lenert LA. Feasibility of quality-of-life research on the Internet: a follow-up study. Qual Life Res 1999;8:743-747.
39. Lenert LA, Sturley A, Skoczen S, et al. Use of the Internet to study preferences for health states in geographically and demographically diverse populations. Med Decis Making 2001;21:534A.
40. Evans WN, Viscusi WK. Income effects and the value of health. J Human Res 1993;28:497-518.
41. Lundberg L, Johannesson M, Silverdahl M, et al. Quality of life, health-state utilities and willingness to pay in patients with psoriasis and atopic eczema. Br J Dermatol 1999;141:1067-1075.
42. O'Conor RM, Johannesson M, Hass SL, et al. Urge incontinence. Quality of life and patients' valuation of symptom reduction. Pharmacoeconomics 1998;14:531-539.
43. Flowers CR, Garber AM, Bergen MR, et al. Willingness-to-pay utility assessment: feasibility of use in normative patient decision support systems. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp 1997:223-227.
44. Krabbe PF, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ. The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods. Soc Sci Med 1997;45:1641-1652.