IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ausecr/v37y2004i1p62-88.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measurement of the Quality of Life for Economic Evaluation and the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) Mark 2 Instrument

Author

Listed:
  • Jeff Richardson
  • Neil Atherton Day
  • Stuart Peacock
  • Angelo Iezzi

Abstract

Including the quality of life in the economic assessment of health and medical services is well established in the literature and a number of multi-attribute utility (MAU) instruments are available which purport to measure health state utilities. One of these, the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument was developed in Australia and uses Australian importance weights. The present article discusses some of the methodological problems encountered by existing instruments. It outlines the construction of the AQoL Mark 2 and the methodological innovations which have attempted to overcome some of these problems. Copyright 2004 The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeff Richardson & Neil Atherton Day & Stuart Peacock & Angelo Iezzi, 2004. "Measurement of the Quality of Life for Economic Evaluation and the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) Mark 2 Instrument," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 37(1), pages 62-88, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ausecr:v:37:y:2004:i:1:p:62-88
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jeff Richardson & Stuart Peacock & Angelo Iezzi, 2009. "Do quality-adjusted life years take account of lost income? Evidence from an Australian survey," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(1), pages 103-109, February.
    2. Edward C. F. Wilson & Stuart J. Peacock & Danny Ruta, 2009. "Priority setting in practice: what is the best way to compare costs and benefits?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 467-478, April.
    3. Carl Tilling & Nancy Devlin & Aki Tsuchiya & Ken Buckingham, 2010. "Protocols for Time Tradeoff Valuations of Health States Worse than Dead: A Literature Review," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5), pages 610-619, September.
    4. Donna Rowen & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Nancy Devlin & Julie Ratcliffe, 2020. "Review of Valuation Methods of Preference-Based Measures of Health for Economic Evaluation in Child and Adolescent Populations: Where are We Now and Where are We Going?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 325-340, April.
    5. Jason Andrew Rogers & Graeme Jones & Jill Cook & Kathryn Squibb & Karen Wills & Aroub Lahham & Tania Winzenberg, 2021. "Chronic plantar heel pain modifies associations of ankle plantarflexor strength and body mass index with calcaneal bone density and microarchitecture," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-15, December.
    6. María Mendoza-Muñoz & José Carmelo Adsuar & Jorge Pérez-Gómez & Laura Muñoz-Bermejo & Miguel Ángel Garcia-Gordillo & Jorge Carlos-Vivas, 2020. "Well-Being, Obesity and Motricity Observatory in Childhood and Youth (WOMO): A Study Protocol," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-15, March.
    7. Valentina Prevolnik Rupel & Marko Ogorevc, 2021. "EQ-5D-Y Value Set for Slovenia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 463-471, April.
    8. Juan M. Ramos-Goñi & Mark Oppe & Elly Stolk & Koonal Shah & Simone Kreimeier & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Nancy Devlin, 2020. "International Valuation Protocol for the EQ-5D-Y-3L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 653-663, July.
    9. Stevens, Katherine & McCabe, Christopher & Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer, 2007. "Multi-attribute utility function or statistical inference models: A comparison of health state valuation models using the HUI2 health state classification system," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 992-1002, September.
    10. Ayse Kuspinar & Nancy Mayo, 2014. "A Review of the Psychometric Properties of Generic Utility Measures in Multiple Sclerosis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(8), pages 759-773, August.
    11. Benjamin M. Craig & Sulabha Ramachandran, 2006. "Relative risk of a shuffled deck: a generalizable logical consistency criterion for sample selection in health state valuation studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 835-848, August.
    12. Sharda, Elizabeth A. & Sutherby, Carolyn G. & Cavanaugh, Daniel L. & Hughes, Anne K. & Woodward, Amanda T., 2019. "Parenting stress, well-being, and social support among kinship caregivers," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 74-80.
    13. Lidia Engel & Nick Bansback & Stirling Bryan & Mary M. Doyle-Waters & David G. T. Whitehurst, 2016. "Exclusion Criteria in National Health State Valuation Studies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(7), pages 798-810, October.
    14. Peacock, Stuart J. & Richardson, Jeff R.J. & Carter, Rob & Edwards, Diana, 2007. "Priority setting in health care using multi-attribute utility theory and programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 897-910, February.
    15. Donna Rowen & Clara Mukuria & Philip A. Powell & Allan Wailoo, 2022. "Exploring the Issues of Valuing Child and Adolescent Health States Using a Mixed Sample of Adolescents and Adults," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 479-488, May.
    16. Jeff Richardson & John McKie & Stuart Peacock & Angelo Iezzi, 2011. "Severity as an independent determinant of the social value of a health service," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(2), pages 163-174, April.
    17. Erik Nord & Jose Luis Pinto & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel & Peter Ubel, 1999. "Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 25-39, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ausecr:v:37:y:2004:i:1:p:62-88. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing or Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mimelau.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.