References
- Feeny DH, Torrance GW, Labelle R. Integrating economic evaluations and quality of life assessments. In: Quality of Life ancl Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials: Second Edition. Spilker B (Ed.), Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, USA 85–95 (1996).
- Hunink M, Glasziou P, Siegel J et al Decision making in health and medicine: Integrating evidence and values. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2001).
- Chapman RII, Stone PW, Sandberg EA, Bell C, Neumann PJ. A comprehensive league table of cost-utility ratios and a sub-table of Panel-worthy' studies. Med Decis. Making20, 451–467 (2000).
- Mittmann N, Troikas K, Risebrough N, Liu BA. Utility scores for chronic conditions in a community-dwelling population. PharmacoEconomics 15,369–376 (1999).
- Barr R, Furlong W, Feeny D, Horsman J, Rosenbaum P, Weitzman S. Evaluating treatments for childhood cancer. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Carell(1), 1–10 (1995).
- Furlong WJ, Feeny DH, Torrance GW, Barr RD. The Health Utilities Index (HUT) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann. Med 33, 375–384 (2001). Showcase article for HUT.
- von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA (1944).
- •Original seminal work defining vNM utilities.
- Torrance G, Feeny D. Utilities and quality- adjusted life years. Int.' 7chnol. Assess. Health Care 5,559–575 (1989).
- •Good review of utilities and QALYs.
- Edwards W Toward the demise of economic man and woman; bottom lines from Santa Cruz. In: Utility theories: measurements and applications. Edwards W (Ed.), Kluwer Academic, Boston, USA 253–267 (1992).
- Howard R. Decision analysis: Practice and promise. Manage. Sci. 34(6), 679–695 (1988).
- Feeny D. A utility approach to the assessment of health-related quality of life. Med Carr 38,11-151-11-154 (2000).
- Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland H, Thiel E. Do patients' evaluations of a future health state change when they actually enter that state? Med Decis. Making31, 1002–1012 (1993).
- Meltzer DO, Polonsky TS. Do quality- adjusted life years reflect patient preferences? Validation using revealed preference for intensive treatment of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Med Decis. Making 18,459 (1998)
- Jansen SJT, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP, Nooij MA, Noordijk EM, Kievit J. Unstable preferences: a shift in valuation or an effect of the elicitation procedure? Med Decis. Making20, 62–71 (2000).
- Jansen SJ, Kievit J, Nooij MA, Stiggelbout AM. Stability of patients' preferences for chemotherapy: the impact of experience. Med Decis. Making21, 295–306 (2001).
- Carter WB, Beach LR, Inui TS, Kirscht JP, Prodzinski JC. Developing and testing a decision model for predicting influenza vaccination compliance. Health Services Res 20(6 Part II), 897–932 (1986).
- Torrance GW. Measurement of health-state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J. Health Econ. 5,1-30 (1986). Classic paper on cost-utility economic evaluation, the nature of utilities and how they are measured.
- Furlong W, Feeny DH, Torrance GW, Barr R, Horsman J. Guide to Design and Development of Health-State Utility Instrumentation. McMaster University, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, Working Paper No. 90–99 (1990).
- ••Most detailed manual on how to prepareinstrumentation for measuring utility and value scores for health states.
- Bennett KJ, Torrance GW. Measuring health state preferences and utilities: rating scale, time trade-off and standard gamble techniques. In: Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Bids: Second Edition. Spilker B (Ed),Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, 253–265 (1996).
- Drummond NE, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Healthcare Programmes, Second Edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (1997). Classic textbook on economic evaluation of healthcare programs, including chapter on CUA, currently available in four languages with translations into three more underway.
- Lenert LA. The reliability and internal consistency of an Internet-capable computer program for measuring utilities. Qual Life Res. 9,811–817 (2001).
- Torrance GW, 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).
- ••Presents a recent and comprehensivereview of the limitations of VASs and power curve models used for converting value scores to utility scores.
- Rosser R, Kind P A scale of valuations of states of illness: Is there a social consensus. Int. Epidemiol. 7(4), 347–358 (1978).
- Rosser R, Watts V. The measurement of illness.J Oper. Res. Soc. 29(6), 529–540 (1978).
- Patrick D, Bush J, Chen M. Methods for measuring levels of well-being for a health status index. Health Services Res. 8(3 Fall), 228–245 (1973).
- Nord E. The person-trade-off approach to valuing healthcare programs. Med Decis. Making-15, 201–208 (1995).
- •Showcase article for the person trade-off preference measurement technique.
- Green C. On the societal value of healthcare: what do we know about the person trade-off technique? Health Economics10, 233–243 (2001).
- Froberg D, Kane R. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences - III: population and context effects. J. Gun. Epidemiol. 42 (6), 585–592 (1989) .
- •Classic review of demographic correlates of preference scores.
- Hadom DC, Uebersax J. Large scale outcome evaluation: how should quality of life be measured? I. Calibration of a brief questionnaire and a search for preference subgroups. .1. Gun. Epidemiol 48,607–618 (1995).
- Essink-Bot M, Stouthard M, Bonsel G. Generalizability of valuations on health states collected with the EuroQol questionnaire. Health Econ. 2,237–246 (1993).
- Balaban D, Sagi P, Goldfarb N, Nettler S. Weights for scoring the quality of well-being instrument among rheumatoid arthritics: A comparison to general population weights. Med. Care 24(11), 973–980 (1986).
- Kaplan R.Value judgement in the Oregon medicaid experiment. Med Care 32(10), 975–988 (1994).
- EuroQol Group. EuroQol - a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Polity 16,199–208 (1990).
- Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press, New York, USA (1996).
- ••Widely cited guidelines for cost- effectiveness studies, including utilities and CUA, sponsored by the US Government and prepared by a panel of prominent researchers.
- Read J, Quinn R, Berwick D, Fineberg H, Weinstein M. Preferences for health outcomes - Comparisons of assessment methods. Med Decis. Making V), 315–329 (1984).
- Bass EB, Steinberg E, Pitt H et al Comparison of the rating scale and the standard gamble in measuring patient preferences for outcomes of gallstone disease. Med Decis. Making-14, 307–314 (1994).
- Krabbe PFM, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ. The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods. Soc. Sci. Med 45,1641–1652 (1997).
- Rabin R, de Charro E EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann. Med 33(5), 337–343 (2001).
- •Showcase article for EQ-5D.
- Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1993).
- •Second edition of the classic book that introduced multiattribute utility theory
- Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW etal Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Med Care 40,113–128 (2002).
- ••Showcase article on the design and fittingof HUI3 utility functions.
- Kaplan RM, Anderson JR The general health policy model: an integrated approach. In: Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, Second Edition. Spilker B (Ed.), Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, USA 309–322 (1996).
- •Provides a description of a recent version of Quality of Well-Being Scale.
- Neumann PJ, Sandberg EA, Araki SS, Kuntz KM, Feeny D, Weinstein MC. A comparison of HUI2 and HUI3 utility scores in Alzheimer's disease. Med Decis. Making-20, 413–422 (2000).
- Cheng AK, Rubin HR, Powe NR, Mellon NK, Francis HW, Niparko JK. Cost-utility analysis of cochlear implant in children. JA/V/A 284,850–856 (2000).
- Torrance G, Thomas W, Sackett D. A utility maximization model for evaluation of healthcare programs. Health Services Res. 7(2 Summer), 118–133 (1972).
- Commonwealth of Australia. Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on Preparation of Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: Including Economic Analyses. Department of Health and Community Services, Canberra, Australia (1995).
- Canadian Co-ordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals: Canada, 2nd Edition. CCOHTA, Ottawa, Canada (1997) . tin National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Technical Guidance for Manufacturers and Sponsors on Making a Submission to a Technology Appraisal. www.nice.org.uk. National Institute for Clinical Excellence, UK (2001).
Websites
- National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Technical Guidance for Manufacturers and Sponsors on Making a Submission to a Technology Appraisal. www.nice.org.uk. National Institute for Clinical Excellence, UK (2001).