A systematic review of SF-6D health state valuation studies

References

• Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: oxford University Press; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Neumann PJ, Sanders GD, Russell LB, et al. Cost-Effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Xie F, Gaebel K, Perampaladas K, et al. Comparing EQ-5D valuation studies: a systematic review and methodological reporting checklist. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(1):8–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devlin N, Brooks R. EQ-5D and the EuroQol group: past, present and future. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15:127–137.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulhern B, Norman R, Street D, et al. One method, many methodological choices: a structured review of Discrete-Choice experiments for health state valuation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(1):29–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics. 2002;21(2):271–292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier JE, Mulhern BJ, Bjorner JB, et al. Developing a new version of the SF-6D health state classification system from the SF-36v2: SF-6Dv2. Med Care. 2020;58(6):557–565.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulhern BJ, Bansback N, Norman R, et al. Valuing the SF-6Dv2 classification system in the United Kingdom using a discrete-choice experiment with duration. Medical Care. 2020;58(6):566–573.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kharroubi S. Valuation of preference-based measures: can existing preference data be used to generate better estimates? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16:116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HAS. Guide méthodologique - choix méthodologiques pour l’évaluation économique la HAS. Paris: Haute Autorité de la Santé; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, et al. Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 health survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):1115–1128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier JE, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Medical Care. 2004;42(9):851–859.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kharroubi SA, O’Hagan A, Brazier JE. Estimating utilities from individual health preference data: a nonparametric Bayesian method. J R Stat Soc C. 2005;54:879–895.
   Google Scholar
• McCabe C, Brazier J, Gilks P, et al. Using rank data to estimate health state utility models. J Health Econ. 2006;25(3):418–431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kharroubi SA, Brazier JE, Roberts J, et al. Modelling SF-6D health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. J Health Econ. 2007;26:597–612.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kharroubi S, Brazier JE, O’Hagan A. Modelling covariates for the SF-6D standard gamble health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64(6):1242–1252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam C, Brazier J, McGhee S. Valuation of the SF-6D health states is feasible, acceptable, reliable, and valid in a Chinese population. Value Health. 2008;11(2):295–303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier JE, Fukuhara S, Roberts J, et al. Estimating a preference-based index from the Japanese SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(12):1323–1331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira L, Ferreira P, Pereira L, et al. A Portuguese value set for the SF-6D. Value Health. 2010;18(8):1162.
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira L, Ferreira P, Rowen D, et al. Do Portuguese and UK health state values differ across valuation methods? Qual of Life Res. 2011;20(4):609–619.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cruz L, Camey S, Hoffmann J, et al. Estimating the SF-6D value set for a population-based sample of brazilians. Value Health. 2011;14(5 Suppl 1):S108–S14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGhee S, Brazier J, Lam C, et al. Quality-adjusted life years: population-specific measurement of the quality component. Hong Kong Med J. 2011;17(Suppl 6):17–21.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Méndez I, Abellán Perpiñán J, Sánchez Martínez F, et al. Inverse probability weighted estimation of social tariffs: an illustration using the SF-6D value sets. J Health Econ. 2011;30(6):1280–1292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abellán Perpiñán J, Sánchez Martínez F, Martínez I. Lowering the ‘floor’ of the SF-6D scoring algorithm using a lottery equivalent method. Health Econ. 2012;21(11):1271–1285.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craig B, Pickard A, Stolk E, et al. US valuation of the SF-6D. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(6):793–803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kharroubi S, Brazier J, McGhee S. Modeling SF-6D Hong Kong standard gamble health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Value Health. 2013;16(6):1032–1045.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kharroubi S, Brazier J, McGhee S. A comparison of Hong Kong and United Kingdom SF-6D health states valuations using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Value Health. 2014;17(4):397–405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman R, Viney R, Brazier J, et al. Valuing SF-6D health states using a discrete choice experiment. Med Decis Making. 2014;34:773–786.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craig B. Unchained melody: revisiting the estimation of SF-6D values. Eur J Health Econ. 2016;17(7):865–873.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kharroubi SA. A comparison of Japan and U.K. SF-6D health-state valuations using a non-parametric Bayesian method. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015;13(4):409–420.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonker M, Donkers B, de Bekker-Grob E, et al. Advocating a paradigm shift in Health-State valuations: the estimation of time-preference corrected QALY tariffs. Value Health. 2018;21(8):993–1001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kharroubi S, Beyh Y, Harake M, et al. Examining the feasibility and acceptability of valuing the arabic version of SF-6D in a lebanese population. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(3):1037.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kharroubi S. Analysis of SF-6D health state utility scores: is beta regression appropriate? Healthcare (Basel). 2020;8(4):525.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dufresne É, Poder T, Samaan K, et al. SF-6Dv2 preference value set for health utility in food allergy. Allergy. 2021;76(1):326–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kharroubi S, Beyh Y. Bayesian modeling of health state preferences: could borrowing strength from existing countries’ valuations produce better estimates. Eur J Health Econ. 2021;22(5):773–788.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie S, Wu J, He X, et al. Do discrete choice experiments approaches perform better than time trade-off in eliciting health state utilities? Evidence from SF-6Dv2 in China. Value Health. 2020;23(10):1391–1399.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu J, Xie S, Chen G, et al. Valuation of SF-6Dv2 health states in China using time trade-off and discrete-choice experiment with a duration dimension. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021;39(5):521–535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osman A, Wu J, He X, et al. Eliciting SF-6Dv2 health state utilities using an anchored best-worst scaling technique. Soc Sci Med. 2021;279:114018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• “Chinese in Australia” [Online]. Available from: https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/chinese-culture/chinese-culture-chinese-in-australia.
   Google Scholar
• Rodríguez A, Nieves Valdés M. Health care expenditures and GDP in Latin American and OECD countries: a comparison using a panel cointegration approach. Int J Health Econ Manag. 2019;19(2):115–153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strauss J, Thomas D. Health, nutrition, and economic development. J Econ Lit. 1998;36(2):766–817.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar