Comparing generic preference-based health-related quality-of-life measures: advancing the research agenda

References

• 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
• Dolan P. Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med. Care 35(11), 1095–1108 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feeny DH, Furlong W, Torrance GW et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med. Care 40(2), 113–128 (2002).
   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. J. Health Econ. 21, 271–292 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan RM, Andersen JP. A general health policy model: update and applications. Health Serv. Res. 23, 203–235 (1988).
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Ware JE, Snow KK, Kolinski M, Gandeck B. SF-36 Health survey manual and interpretation guide. The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre, Boston, MA, USA (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Bosch J, Hunink M. Comparison of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D in patients treated for intermittent claudication. Qual. Life Res. 9, 591–601 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day NA. A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQOL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann. Med. 33, 358–370 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stavem K, Bjørnaes H, Lossius MI. Properties of the 15D and EQ-5D utility measures in a community sample of people with epilepsy. Epilepsy Res. 44(2–3), 179–189 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bosch J, Halpern E, Gazelle G. Comparison of preference-based utilities of the Short-Form 36 Health Survey and Health Utilities Index before and after treatment of patients with intermittent claudication. Med. Decis. Making 22, 403–409 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almzor ME. Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-year by different preference-based instruments. Med. Care 41(7), 791–801 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krahn M, Ritvo P, Irvine J et al. Patient and community preferences for outcomes in prostate cancer: implications for clinical policy. Med. Care 41(1), 153–164 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Brien BJ, Spath M, Blackhouse G, Severens JL, Dorian P, Brazier J. A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF-6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index. Health Econ. 12, 975–981 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 13, 873–884 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feeny D, Wu L, Eng K. Comparing short form 6D, standard gamble, and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 utility scores: results from total hip arthroplasty patients. Qual. Life Res. 13(10), 1659–1670 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerard K, Nicholson T, Mullee M, Mehta R, Roderick P. EQ-5D versus SF-6D in an older, chronically ill patient group. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 3(2), 91–102 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hatoum HT, Brazier JE, Akhras KS. Comparison of the HUI3 with the SF-36 preference based SF-6D in a clinical trial setting. Value Health 7(5), 602–609 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holland R, Smith RD, Harvey I, Swift L, Lenaghan E. Assessment of quality of life in the elderly: a direct comparison of the EQ-5D and AQOL. Health Econ. 13, 793–805 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Longworth L, Bryan S. An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Health Econ. 12, 1061–1067 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marra CA, Esdaile JM, Guh D et al. A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis. Med. Care 42(11), 1125–1131 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szende A, Svensson K, Stahl E, Meszaros A, Berta GY. Psychometric and utility-based measures of health status of asthmatic patients with different disease control level. Pharmacoeconomics 22(8), 537–547 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton GR, Bankart J, Davis AC. A comparison of the quality of life of hearing-impaired people as estimated by three different utility measures. Int. J. Audiol. 44(3), 157–163 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisk JD, Brown MG, Sketris IS, Metz LM, Murray TJ, Stadnyk KJ. A comparison of health utility measures for the evaluation of multiple sclerosis treatments. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 76(1), 58–63 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonough CM, Grove MR, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Hilibrand AS, Tosteson ANA. Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-36-derived societal health state values among Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) participants. Qual. Life Res. 14(5), 1321–1332 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec JA et al. A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQOL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc. Sci. Med. 60(7), 1571–1582 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marra CA, Rashidi AA, Guh D et al. Are indirect utility measures reliable and responsive in rheumatoid arthritis patients? Qual. Life Res. 14(5), 1333–1344 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Feeny DH. Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Qual. Life Res. 14, 207–219 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stavem K, Froland SS, Hellum KB. Comparison of preference-based utilities of the 15D, EQ-5D and SF-6D in patients with HIV/AIDS. Qual. Life Res. 14(4), 971–980 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol. Assess. 2(14), 1–74 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann. Intern. Med. 118, 622–629 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawthorne G, Richardson J. Measuring the value of program outcomes: a review of multiattribute utility measures. Expert Rev. Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 1(2), 215–228 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brazier J, Deverill M. A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: learning from psychometrics. Health Econ. 8, 41–51 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8376), 307–310 (1986).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Kirshner B, Jaeschke R. Measuring health status: what are the necessary measurement properties? J. Clin. Epidemiol. 45(12), 1341–1345 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Kirshner B, Jaeschke R. A methodologic framework for health status measures: clarity or oversimplication? J. Clin. Epidemiol. 45(12), 1353–1355 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altman DG, Bland JM. Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. Statistician 32, 307–317 (1983).
   Google Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman DG. Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 22, 85–93 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 8, 135–160 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 53, 459–468 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindeboom M, van Doorslaer E. Cut-point shift and index shift in self-reported health. J. Health Econ. 23, 1083–1099 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koenker R, Hallock KF. Quantile regression. J. Econ. Perspect. 15(4), 143–156 (2001).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scharf S, Juanes F, Sutherland M. Inferring ecological relationships from the edges of scatter diagrams: comparison of regression techniques. Ecology 79(2), 448–460 (1998).
   Web of Science ®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 Technol. Assess. 3(9), 1–163 (1999).
   Google Scholar