Measuring the value of program outcomes: a review of multiattribute utility measures

References

• Rabin R, de Charro E EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann. Med 33,337–343 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• •Showcase article for EQ-5D.
   Google Scholar
• Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day N. A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQol) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann. Med. 33,358–370 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• •Showcase article for AQoL.
   Google Scholar
• Furlong W Feeny D, Torrance G, Barr R. The Health Utilities Index (HUT) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann. Med 33,375–384 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• •Show case article for HUI3.
   Google Scholar
• WHOQol Group. The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (VVH0QoL): position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc. Sc]. Med 41,1403–1409 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Feeny D, Torrance G, Furlong W Health utilities index. In: Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. B Spilker (Ed.). Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Philadelpha, USA (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day N, McNeil H. Using the Assessment of Quality of Lik' (AQoL) instrument. Technical Report 12. CHPE. Melbourne, Australia (2000) .
   Google Scholar
• Sintonen H. The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Ann. Med 33,328–336 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• •Showcase article for 15D.
   Google Scholar
• Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Osborne R. The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) Instrument: a psychometric measure of health related quality of life. Qual Life Res. 8,209–224 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Polity 16,199–208 (1990).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sintonen H, Pekurinen M. A fifteen- dimensional measure of health-related quality of life (15D) and its applications. In: Quality of Life Assessment. S Walker, Rosser R (Eds). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day N,Osborne R, McNeil H. Construction and Utility Scaling of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) Instrument Working Paper 101. Centre for Health Program Evaluation. Melbourne, Australia (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Richardson J, Hawthorne G. Negative Utilities and the Evaluation of Complex Health States: Issues Arising from the Scaling of a NIultMttribute Utility Instrument. Working Paper 113. Centre for Health Program Evaluation. Melbourne, Australia (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G etal Multiplicative Multi-attribute Utility Function for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (H1113) System: A Technical Report. 98-11. McMaster University, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis. Hamilton, Canada (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Froberg D, Kane R. Methodology for measuring health state preferences-I: measurement strategies. J. Clin. Epidemiol 42,345–354 (1989).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook K, Ashton C, Byrne M etal A psychometric analysis of the measurement level of the rating scale, time trade-off and standard gamble. Soc. Sci. Med 53,1275–1285 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothwell P, McDowell Z, Wong C, Dorman P Doctors and patients don't agree: cross-sectional study of patients' and doctors' perceptions and assessment of disability in multiple sclerosis. BE Med. 314,1580–1583 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sartorius N. A WHO method for the assessment of health-related quality of life (WHOQOL). In: Quality of Life Assessment: Key Issues in the1990s. Walker S, Rosser R (Eds.). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands 201–207 (1990).
   Google Scholar
• The WHOQOL Group. The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): development and general psychometric properties. Soc. Sci. Med 46,1569–1585 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHOQOL Group. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQ0L-BREF Quality of Life Assessment. Psychological Med 28,551–558 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunt S, McKenna S, McEwen J, Williams J, Papp E. The Nottingham Health Profile: subjective health status and medical consultations. Soc. Sci. Med 15A, 221–229 (1981).
   Google Scholar
• Martini C, Hunt S. The Nottingham Health Profile. In: Measuring- Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaims. McDowell I, Newell C (Eds.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (1987).
   Google Scholar
• Hunt S, McKenna S, McEwen J. The Nottingham health profile user's manual Galen Research & Consultancies. Manchester, UK (1989).
   Google Scholar
• Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Kressel S et al The Sickness Impact Profile: conceptual formulation and methodology for the development of a health status measure. Int. .1. Health Services, Planning, Administration, Evaluation 6,393–415 (1976).
   Google Scholar
• Bergner M, Bobbit R, Carter W Gilson B. The Sickness Impact Profile; development and revision of a health status measure. Med Care 19,787–805 (1981).
   Google Scholar
• Ware J, Sherbourne C. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30,473–483 (1992).
   Google Scholar
• Ware J, Snow K, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpmtation Guide. The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre. Boston, USA (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Kind P Measuring quality of life in evaluating clinical interventions: an overview. Ann. Med 33,323–327 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Torrance G. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J. Health Econ. 5,1–30 (1986).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ••This is the classic paper outlining whereCUA fits into economic evaluation, the nature of utilities, how they should be measured and the requirements of standard gamble and time trade-off.
   Google Scholar
• Schipper H, Clinch J, Olweny C. Quality of life studies: definitions and conceptual issues. In: Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Spilker B (Ed.). Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Philadelphia, USA (1996).
   Google Scholar
• von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W Decision Analysis ancl Behavioural Researrh. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1986).
   Google Scholar
• •The most thorough explication of the theory behind decision analysis, utility measurement and the various methods of combining different dimensions into indices. This is an extremely rewarding (but challenging and difficult) text for those needing an understanding of decision theory
   Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, Harper R, Booth A. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technology Assess. 3,1-165 (1999). This is the most comprehensive review of utility measurement published. It covers the background to the use of utility measurement, a review of utility methods, instruments and evaluations.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett K, Torrance G. Measuring healthstate preferences and utilities: rating scale, time trade-off and standard gamble techniques. In: Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Spilker B (Ed.). Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Philadelphia, USA 253–265 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Robinson A, Dolan P, Williams A. Valuing health states using VAS and TTO: what lies behind the numbers? Soc. Sci. Med. 45, 1289–1297 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Richardson J. Cost utility analysis: what should be measured? Soc. ScL Med. 39,7-21 (1994). Essential reading to understand the theoretical arguments behind QALY measurement. It also presents detailed analyses of the standard gamble and time trade-off.
   Google Scholar
• Nord E. Health state values from multiattribute utility instruments need correction. Ann. Med. 33,371–374 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loomes G, McKenzie L. The use of QALYs in healthcare decision making. Soc. ScL Med. 28,299–308 (1989).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzpatrick R, Albrecht G. The plausiblity of quality-of-life measures in different domains of healthcare. In: Concepts and Measurement of Quality of Life in Healthcare. Nordenfelt L (Ed.). Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands 201–227 (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Richardson J, Hawthorne G. Difficultywith life and death: methodological issues and results from the utility scaling of the 'Assessment of Quality of Life' (AQoL) instrument. Economics and Health: 1998 Pmceedings of the Twenthieth Australian Conference of Health Economists. The University of Sydney, School of Health Services Management. Sydney, Australia (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Nord E, Richardson J, Macarounas- Kirchmann K. Social evaluation of healthcare versus personal evaluation of health states. Evidence on the validity of four health-state scaling instruments using Norwegian and Australian surveys. Int. j Technology Assam 1-kalthcate9, 463–478 (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Cronbach J, Meehl P. Construct validity in psychological tests. Rychological Bull 52, 281–302 (1955).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosser R. A health index and output measure. In: Quality of Life Assessment: Key Issues in the 1990s. Walker S, Rosser R (Eds.). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan R, Anderson J, Ganiats T The Quality of Well-Being Scale: rationale for a single quality of life index. In: Quality of Life Assessment: Key Issues in the 1990s. Walker S, Rosser R (Eds.). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan R, Ganiats T, Sieber W, Anderson J. The Quality of Well-being Scale, in Med. Outcomes Trust Bull. 2–3. (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Torrance G, Furlong W, Feeny D, Boyle M. Multi-attribute preference functions: health utilities index. PharmacoEconomics. 7,503–520 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance G. Health Utilities Index Mark 2 ancl Mark 3 (H1112/ 3) 15-item questionnaire for self-administered, self-assessed usual health status Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Sintonen H. The 15D measure of health- related quality of life: feasibility, reliability and validity of its valuation system. Working Paper 42. National Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Melbourne, Australia (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Sintonen H. The 15D measure of health- related quality of life: reliability validity and sensitivity of its health state descriptive system. Working Paper 41. National Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Melbourne, Australia (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Kind P. The EuroQoL instrument: an index of health-related quality of life. In: Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Spilker B (Ed.). Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Philadelpha, USA (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Hawthorne G, Osborne R, McNeil H, Richardson J. The Australian Multi-attribute Utility (AIVIAO: Construction and Initial Evaluation. Working paper 53. Centre for Health Program Evaluation. Melbourne, Australia (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, Thomas K. Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. j Clin. Epidemiol 51,1115–1128 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Fryback D, Lawrence W, Martin P, Klein R, Klein B. Predicting Quality of Well-Being scores from the SF-36: results from the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study. Med. Decis. Making 17,1–9 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan R, Bush J, Berry C. Health status: types of validity and the Index of Well-being. Health Services Res. 11,478–507 (1976).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan RM, Anderson JR A general health policy model: update and applications. Health Services Res. 23,203–235 (1988).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nord E. A Review of Synthetic Health Indicators. National Institute of Public Health for the OECD Directorate for Education, Employment, Labour and Social Affairs. Oslo, Norway (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med. Cara 35,1095–1108 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MVH Group. The Measurement and Valuation of Health: Final Modelling of Valuation Tatra Centre for Health Economics, York, UK (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. Health Econ. 15,209–231 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Hawthorne G, Richardson J. An Australian MAU/QALY Instrument: Rationale and Preliminary Results. Working Paper 49. Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Melbourne, Australia (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Rice N, Roberts J, South B. Modelling health state values for the SF6D: a multilevel approach. Health Economics Study amp Conference. Sheffield, UK (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Torrance G, Feeny D, Furlong W et al Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med. Care 34,702–722 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Torrance G, Boyle M, Horwood S. Application of multi-attribute theory to measure social preferences for health states. Operations Res. 30,1043–1069 (1982).
   Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. An experimental test of a theoretical foundation for rating-scale valuations. Med. Decis. Making 17,208–216 (1997).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Robinson A, Loomes G, Jones-Lee M. Visual analog scales, standard gambles and relative risk aversion. Med. Decis. Making 21,17–27 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Torrance GVV, Feeny D, Furlong W Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med. Deck. Making21, 329–334 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan R, Bush J, Berry C. Health status index: category rating versus magnitude estimation for measuring levels of well-being. Med. Cam 17, 501–525 (1979).
   Google Scholar
• Pedhazur E, Schmelkin L. Measurement, Design ancl Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, USA (1991).
   Google Scholar
• Anastasi A. Psychological Testing. 4th ed. Macmillan Publishing, New York, USA (1976).
   Google Scholar
• Anastasi A. Evolving concepts of test validation. Ann. Rev Psycho]: 37, 1–15 (1986).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson C, Zumbo B. A statistical examination of the Health Utility Index-Mark III as a summary measure of health status for a general population survey. Soc. Indicators Res. 51, 171–191 (2000).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J. Deriving a utility index from the SF-36 health survey. Managing and Measuring Health Outcomes: From Policy to Practice. The Australian Health Outcomes Collaboration, University of Wollongong, Canberra, Australia (1997).
   Google Scholar
• O'Connor R. Issues in the Masurement of Health-Related Qualik pf Life. Working Paper 30. National Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Melbourne, Australia (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Payers P, Machin D. Quality of Life: Assessment, Analysis and Inteipmtation. Wiley, Chichester, UK (2000).Essential reading for those using quality of life measures, this text covers most of the research methodological issues. For those wishing to interpret quality of life scores, Chapter 16 provides a solid overview.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobson N, Traux P. Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research.Consult. Gun. Psychol. 59, 12–19 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyatt G, Naylor D, Juniper E et al User's guides to the medical literature XII. How to use articles about health-related quality of life. jAm. Med. Assoc. 277, 1232–1237 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. International Classification of Impairments. Disabilities and Handicaps. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland (1980).
   Google Scholar
• Streiner D, Norman G. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to their Development and Use. 2nd ed. Oxford Medical Publications, Oxford, UK (1995).
   Google Scholar