Health utility and economic analysis: theoretical and practical issues

References

• Keehan S, Sisko A, Truffer C et al. Health spending projections through 2017: the baby-boom generation is coming to medicare. Health Aff.27(2), W145–W155 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J. Health Econ.5(1), 1–30 (1986).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. Oxford University Press, Inc., NY, USA (2003).
   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
• Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med. Care35(11), 1095–1108 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance GW, Furlong WJ, Feeny DH, Boyle M. Multi-attribute preference functions: health utilities index. Pharmacoeconomics7, 503 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NICE. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. Draft for Consultation. NICE, London, UK (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Fryback DG, Lawrence WF, Martin PA, Klein R, Klein BEK. Predicting quality of well-being scores from the SF-36: results from the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study. Med. Decis. Making17(1), 1–9 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franks P, Lubetkin EI, Gold MR, Tancredi DJ, Jia H. Mapping the SF-12 to the EuroQol EQ-5D Index in a National US Sample. Med. Decis. Making24(3), 247–254 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan V. Mapping the EQ-5D Index from the SF-12: US general population preferences in a nationally representative sample. Med. Decis. Making26(4), 401–409 (2006).
   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, 73–81 (2007).
   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, 214–220 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Dobrez D, Cella D, Pickard AS, Lai JS, Nickolov A. Estimation of patient preference-based utility weights from the functional assessment of cancer therapy general. Value Health10, 266–272 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soubrane G, Cruess A, Lotery A et al. Burden and health care resource utilization in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: findings of a multicountry study. Arch Ophthalmol.125(9), 1249–1254 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Payakachat N, Summers KH, Pleil AM et al. Predicting EQ-5D utility scores from the 25-item National Eye Institute Vision Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25) in patients with age-related macular degeneration. Qual. Life Res. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-009-9499-6 (2009) (Epub ahead of print).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McIntosh L, Kymes SM, Perron BBM, Nease RF Jr, Sumner W. Truth and consequences: assessing the relationship between health and vision related quality of life. Presented at: Eyes of Innovation, 2008 Annual Meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO). Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, 27 April–1 May 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med. Care40(2), 113–128 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Akehurst R, Brennan A et al.Should Patients Have a Greater Role in Valuing Health States: Whose Well-being Is It Anyway? Discussion Paper Series. Ref: 04/3. 5–5–2004. The University of Sheffield School of Health and Related Research. Health Economics and Decision Science. Sheffield Health Economics Group. Sheffield, UK (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Jepson C. Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Qual. Life Res.12(6), 599–607 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fryback DG. Whose quality of life? Or whose decision? Qual. Life Res.12(6), 609–610 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Akehurst R, Brennan A et al. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl. Health Economics Health Policy4, 201–208 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brazier J, Jones N, Kind P. Testing the validity of the Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Qual. Life Res.2(3), 169–180 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan PW, Lawrence WF, Ghushchyan V. A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med. Care43(7), 736–749 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan V. Preference-based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med. Decis. Making26(4), 410–420 (2006).
   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(9), 873–884 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The EuroQoL Group. Innovation in the measurement of health related quality of life: the EQ-5D R&D Programme. Presented at: The ISPOR 14th Annual International Meeting. FL, USA, 16–20 May 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson JA, Luo N, Shaw JW, Kind P, Coons SJ. Valuations of EQ-5D health states: are the United States and United Kingdom different? Med. Care43(3), 221–228 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo N, Johnson JA, Shaw JW, Coons SJ. A comparison of EQ-5D index scores derived from the US and UK population-based scoring functions. Med. Decis. Making27(3), 321–326 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar