Converting condition-specific measures into preference-based outcomes for use in economic evaluation

References

• NICE. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London, UK (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Budweiser S. Acute exacerbations in COPD: a real enemy in the natural course of the disease. Int. J. Clin. Pract.62(4), 524–525 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rutten-van Mölken MPMH, Oostenbrink JB, Miravitlles M, Monz BU. Modelling the 5-year cost effectiveness of tiotropium, salmeterol and ipratropium for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Spain. Eur. J. Health Econ.8(2), 123–135 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simoens S, Decramer M. Pharmacoeconomics of the management of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Expert Opin. Pharmacother.8(5), 633–648 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickard AS, Wilke C, Jung E, Patel S, Stavem K, Lee TA. Use of a preference-based measure of health (EQ-5D) in COPD and asthma. Respir. Med.102(4), 519–536 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortimer D, Segal L. Comparing the incomparable? A systematic review of competing techniques for converting descriptive measures of health status into QALY-weights. Med. Decis. Making28(1), 66–89 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bansback N, Marra C, Tsuchiya A et al. Using the health assessment questionnaire to estimate preference-based single indices in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arth. Care Res.57(6), 963–971 (2007).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier JE, Kolotkin RL, Crosby RD, Williams GR. Estimating a preference-based single index for the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite (IWQOL-Lite) instrument from the SF-6D. Value Health7(4), 490–498 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan DS, Spencer AJ. Mapping oral health related quality of life to generic health state values. BMC Health Serv. Res.6(96), 1–10 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buxton MJ, Lacey LA, Feagan BG, Niecko T, Miller DW, Townsend RJ. Mapping from disease-specific measures to utility: an analysis of the relationships between the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire and Crohn’s Disease Activity Index in Crohn’s Disease and measures of utility. Value Health10(3), 214–220 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chancellor JVM, Coyle D, Drummond MF. Constructing health state preference values from descriptive quality of life outcomes: mission impossible? Qual. Life Res.6(2), 159–168 (1997).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gerard K, Johnston K, Brown J. The role of a pre-scored multi-attribute health classification measure in validating condition-specific health state descriptions. Heallth Econ.8(8), 685–699 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grootendorst P, Marshall D, Pericak D, Bellamy N, Feeny D, Torrance GW. A model to estimate Health Utilities Index Mark 3 utility scores from WOMAC index scores in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. J. Rheum.34(3), 534–542 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koltowska-Häggström M, Jonsson B, Isacson D, Bingefors K. Using EQ-5D to derive general population-based utilities for the quality of life assessment of growth hormone deficiency in adults (QoL-AGHDA). Value Health10(1), 73–81 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenert LA, Sturley AP, Rapaport MH, Chavez S, Mohr PE, Rupnow M. Public preferences for health states with schizophrenia and a mapping function to estimate utilities from positive and negative symptom scale scores. Schiz. Res.71(1), 155–165 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Longworth L, Buxton MJ, Sculpher M, Smith D. Estimating utility data from clinical indicators for patients with stable angina. Eur. J. Health Econ.6(4), 347–353 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Marshall D, Pericak D, Grootendorst P et al. Validation of a prediction model to estimate health utilities index mark 3 utility scores from WOMAC index scores in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip. Value Health11(3), 470–477 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melsop KA, Boothroyd DB, Hlatky MA. Quality of life and time trade-off utility measures in patients with coronary artery disease. Am. Heart J.145(1), 36–41 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsuchiya A, Brazier J, McColl E, Parkin D. Deriving preference-based single indices from non-preference based condition-specific instruments: converting AQLQ into EQ5D indices. Sheffield Health Economics Group Discussion Paper Series 02/01. University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Wu EQ, Mulani P, Farrell MH, Sleep D. Mapping FACT-P and EORTC QLQ-C30 to patient health status measured by EQ-5D in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients. Value Health10(5), 408–414 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang M, Dubois D, Kosinski M, Sun X, Gajria K. Mapping MOS Sleep Scale scores to SF-6D utility index. Curr. Med. Res. Opin.23(9), 2269–2282 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kulkarni AV. Distribution-based and anchor-based approaches provided different interpretability estimates for the Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire. J. Clin. Epi.59(2), 176–184 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segal L, Day SE, Chapman AB, Osborne RH. Can we reduce disease burden from osteoarthritis? An evidence-based priority-setting model. Med. J. Aust.180(5 Suppl.), S11–S17 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Dixon S. The use of condition specific outcome measures in economic appraisal. Health Econ.4(4), 255–264 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenert LA, Rupnow MFT, Elnitsky C. Application of a disease-specific mapping function to estimate utility gains with effective treatment of schizophrenia. Health Qual. Life Outcomes3(57) 1–12 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mortimer D, Segal L, Hawthorne G, Harris A. Item-based versus subscale-based mappings from the SF-36 to a preference-based quality of life measure. Value Health10(5), 398–407 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier JE, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med. Care42(9), 851–859 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamers LM, Uyl-de Groot CA, Buijt I. The use of disease-specific outcome measures in cost-utility analysis: The development of Dutch societal preference weights for the FACT-L scale. Pharmacoeconomics25(7), 591–603 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett KJ, Torrance GW, Boyle MH, Guscott R. Cost-utility analysis in depression: the McSad utility measure for depression health states. Psych. Services51(9), 1171–1176 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Czoski-Murray C, Roberts J, Brown M, Symonds T, Kelleher C. Estimation of a preference-based index from a condition-specific measure: The King’s health questionnaire. Med. Decis. Making28(1), 113–126 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier JE, Roberts J, Platts M, Zoellner YF. Estimating a preference-based index for a menopause specific health quality of life questionnaire. Health Qual. Life Outcomes3(13), 1–9 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Burr JM, Kilonzo M, Vale L, Ryan M. Developing a preference-based glaucoma utility index using a discrete choice experiment. Optom. Vision Sci.84(8), 797–808 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casey R, Tarride EJ, Keresteci AM, Torrance GW, Bin LK, Brock BG. The Erectile Function Visual Analog Scale (EF-VAS): a disease-specific utility instrument for the assessment of erectile function. Can. J. Urol.13(2), 3016–3025 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chiou CF, Weaver MR, Bell MA, Lee TA, Kreiger JW. Development of the multi-attribute pediatric asthma health outcome measure (PAHOM). Int. J. Qual. Health Care17(1), 23–30 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daley M, Shepard DS, Bury-Maynard D. Changes in quality of life for pregnant women in substance user treatment: developing a quality of life index for the addictions. Subst. Use Misuse40(3), 375–394 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dixon S, McEwan P, Currie CJ. Estimating the health utility of treatment in adults with growth hormone deficiency. J. Outcomes Res.7, 1–12 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Dobrez D, Cella D, Pickard AS, Lai J-S, Nickolov A. Estimation of patient preference-based utility weights from the functional assessment of cancer therapy – general. Value Health10(4), 266–272 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goossens MEJ, Vlaeyen JWS, Rutten-van Mölken MPMH, van der Linden SMJP. Patient utilities in chronic musculoskeletal pain: how useful is the standard gamble method? Pain80(1–2), 365–375 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Chorus AMJ, van Beekum WT, Detmar SB, van den Hout WB. Modelling and estimation of valuations for the Dutch London Handicap Scale. J. Health Econ.25(6), 1119–1138 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hürny C, van Wegberg B, Bacchi M et al. Subjective health estimations (SHE) in patients with advanced breast cancer: an adapted utility concept for clinical trials. Br. J. Cancer77(6), 985–991 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juniper EF, Thompson AK, Roberts JN. Can the standard gamble and rating scale be used to measure quality of life in rhinoconjunctivitis? Comparison with the RQLQ and SF-36. Allergy57(3), 201–206 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kind P, Macran S. Eliciting social preference weights for functional assessment of cancer therapy-lung health states. Pharamcoeconomics23(11), 1143–1153 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King JT Jr, Tsevat J, Moossy JJ, Roberts MS. Preference-based quality of life measurement in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine29(11), 1271–1280 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirsch J, McGuire A. Establishing health state valuations for disease specific states: An example from heart disease. Health Econ.9(2), 149–158 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kok ET, McDonnell J, Stolk EA, Stoevalaar HJ, Busschbach JJV. The valuation of the international prostate symptom score (IPSS) for use in economic evaluations. Eur. Urol.42(5), 491–497 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nichol G, Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Theil HC, Naylor CD. The relationship between cardiac functional capacity and patients’ symptom-specific utilities for angina: some findings and methodologic lessons. Med. Decis. Making16(1), 78–85 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poissant L, Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Clarke AE. The development and preliminary validation of a Preference-based Stroke Index (PBSI). Health Qual. Life Outcomes1(43), 1–15 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ratcliffe J. Estimation of a Preference Based Single Index from the Sexual Quality of Life Questionnaire (SQOL) Using Ordinal Data, in Health Economics and Decision Science. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Revicki DA. Relationship between health utility and psychometric health status measures. Med. Care30(5 Suppl.), 274–282 (1992).
   Google Scholar
• Revicki DA, Leidy NK, Brennan-Diemer F, Sorensen S, Togias A. Integrating patient preferences into health outcomes assessment: the multiattribute asthma symptom utility index. Chest114(4), 998–1007 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revicki DA, Leidy NK, Brennan-Diemer F, Thomson C. Development and preliminary validation of the multiattribute Rhinitis Symptom Utility Index. Qual. Life Res.7(8), 693–702 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens KJ, Brazier JE, McKenna SP, Doward LC, Cork MJ. The development of a preference-based measure of health in children with atopic dermatitis. Br. J. Derm.153(2), 372–377 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance GW, Keresteci MA, Casey RW et al. Development and initial validation of a new preference-based disease-specific health-related quality of life instrument for erectile function. Qual. Life Res.13(2), 349–359 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wasserman J, Aday LA, Begley CE, Ahn C, Lairson DR. Measuring health state preferences for hemophilia: development of a disease-specific utility instrument. Haemophilia11(1), 49–57 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang Y, Tsuchiya A, Brazier JE, Young TA. Estimating a preference-based single index from the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). Health Economics and Decision Science Discussion Paper No. 07/02. University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK (2007).
   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
• Brauer CA, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, Neumann PJ. Trends in the measurement of health utilities in published cost-utility analyses. Value Health9(4), 213–218 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King JT Jr, Styn MA, Tsevat J, Roberts MS. “Perfect health” versus “disease free”: The impact of anchor point choice on the measurement of preferences and the calculation of disease-specific disutilities. Med. Decis. Making23(3), 212–225 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Osch SMC, van den Hout WB, Stiggelbout AM. Exploring the reference point in prospect theory: gambles for length of life. Med. Decis. Making.26(4), 338–346 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens K, McCabe C, Brazier J, Roberts J. Multi-attribute utility function or statistical inference models: A comparison of health state valuation models using the HUI2 health state classification system. J. Health Econ.26(5), 992–1002 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance G. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J. Health Econ.5(1), 1–30 (1986).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J. Health Econ.15(2), 209–231 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckingham JK, Birdsall J, Douglas JG. Comparing three versions of the time tradeoff: time for a change? Med. Decis. Making16(4), 335–347 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pope R. Biases from omitted risk effects in standard gamble utilities. J. Health Econ.23(4), 695–735 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spencer A. The implications of linking questions within the SG and TTO methods. Health Econ.13(8), 807–818 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Osch SMC, Wakker PP, van den Hout WB, Stiggelbout AM. Correcting biases in standard gamble and time tradeoff utilities. Med. Decis. Making24(5), 511–517 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H, Pinto JL, Abellan-Perpinan JM. A consistency test of the time trade-off. J. Health Econ.22(6), 1037–1052 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Attema AE, Brouwer WBF. Can we fix it? Yes we can! But what? A new test of procedural invariance in TTO-measurement. Health Econ.17(7), 877–885 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badia X, Roset M, Herdman M. Inconsistent responses in three preference-elicitation methods for health states. Soc. Sci. Med.49(7), 943–950 (1999)
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ.5(2), 141–154 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puhan MA, Schünemann HJ, Wong E, Griffith L, Guyatt GH. The standard gamble showed better construct validity than the time trade-off. J. Clin. Epi.60(10), 1029–1033 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Green C, McCabe C, Stevens K. Use of visual analog scales in economic evaluation. Expert Rev. Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res.3(3), 293–302 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brazier J, McCabe C. ‘Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in CUA’ by Parkin and Devlin a response: ‘Yes there is a case, but what does it add to ordinal data?’ Health Econ.16(6), 645–647 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med. Decis. Making, 21(4), 329–334 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens KJ, McCabe CJ, Brazier JE. Mapping between visual analogue scale and Standard Gamble data; results from the UK Health Utilities Index 2 valuation survey. Health Econ.15(5), 527–533 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Osch SMC, Stiggelbout AM. Understanding VAS valuations: Qualitative data on the cognitive process. Qual. Life Res.14(10), 2171–2175 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aspinall PA, Hill AR, Dhillon B et al. Quality of life and relative importance: a comparison of time trade-off and conjoint analysis methods in patients with age-related macular degeneration. Br. J. Ophthalmol.91(6), 766–772 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKenzie L, Cairns J, Osman L. Symptom-based outcome measures for asthma: the use of discrete choice methods to assess patient preferences. Health Pol.57(3), 193–204 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stolk EA, Busschbach JJV. Validity and feasibility of the use of condition-specific outcome measures in economic evaluation. Qual. Life Res.12(4), 363–371 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burstrom K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F. A comparison of individual and social time trade-off values for health states in the general population. Health Pol.76(3), 359–370 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stiggelbout AM, de Vogel-Voogt E. Health State Utilities: a framework for studying the gap between the imagined and the real. Value Health11(1), 76–87 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Barr RD, Zhang Y, Wang Q. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med. Care34(7), 702–722 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost–Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press, NY, USA (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Dowie J. Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition-specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions. Health Econ.11(1), 1–8 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyatt G. Commentary on Jack Dowie, “Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition-specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions”. Health Econ.11(1), 9–12 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krahn M, Bremner KE, Tomlinson G, Ritvo P, Ivine J, Naglie G. Responsiveness of disease-specific and generic utility instruments in prostate cancer patients. Qual. Life Res.16(3), 509–522 (2007).
   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
• Lloyd AJ. Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate? Health Econ.12(5), 393–402 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar