IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v21y2001i4p288-294.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Off-the-Shelf Help List

Author

Listed:
  • Chaim M. Bell

    (Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, Institute of Medical Science and Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada)

  • Richard H. Chapman

    (Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts)

  • Patricia W. Stone

    (Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, Department of Community and Preventive Medicine, University of Rochester School of Nursing, New York)

  • Eileen A. Sandberg

    (Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts)

  • Peter J. Neumann

    (Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts)

Abstract

Purpose. The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine recommends an organized collection of preference measure values for health states that can be used in cost-utility analyses (CUAs). The authors sought to construct a catalog of preference scores from published CUAs, organize the catalog by clinical categories, and identify methods of preference score assessment. Method. The authors systematically searched Medline and other databases to identify original CUAs published through 1997. Information was abstracted on the health state descriptions, corresponding preference scores, method of preference score elicitation, and the source of the estimate. Results. Two hundred twenty-eight CUAs were appraised. The authors found 949 health states and corresponding preference scores. Most frequently, health states pertained to the circulatory system (21.7%), health states were valued by experts (35.8%), and values were derived through community-based preference scores (23.5%). Conclusion. A catalog of preference scores for health states can be constructed. The catalog (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/organizations/hcra/cuadatabase/intro.html) may provide a useful reference tool for producers and consumers of CUAs but also underscores the methodologic variation and inconsistencies present in the field.

Suggested Citation

  • Chaim M. Bell & Richard H. Chapman & Patricia W. Stone & Eileen A. Sandberg & Peter J. Neumann, 2001. "An Off-the-Shelf Help List," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(4), pages 288-294, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:21:y:2001:i:4:p:288-294
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0102100404
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X0102100404
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X0102100404?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James Mason & Michael Drummond, 1995. "Reporting guidelines for economic studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 4(2), pages 85-94, March.
    2. Gerard, Karen & Smoker, Irenie & Seymour, Janelle, 1999. "Raising the quality of cost-utility analyses: lessons learnt and still to learn," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 217-238, March.
    3. Nord, Erik, 1992. "Methods for quality adjustment of life years," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 559-569, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Gordon Hazen, 2004. "Multiattribute Structure for QALYs," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(4), pages 205-216, December.
    2. Teresa Kauf & Raymond Farkouh & Stephanie Earnshaw & Maria Watson & Penny Maroudas & Mike Chambers, 2010. "Economic Efficiency of Genetic Screening to Inform the Use of Abacavir Sulfate in the Treatment of HIV," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(11), pages 1025-1039, November.
    3. Trude Arnesen & Mari Trommald, 2005. "Are QALYs based on time trade‐off comparable? – A systematic review of TTO methodologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 39-53, January.
    4. Christine McDonough & Anna Tosteson, 2007. "Measuring Preferences for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 93-106, February.
    5. Don Kenkel, 2006. "WTP- and QALY-Based Approaches to Valuing Health for Policy: Common Ground and Disputed Territory," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(3), pages 419-437, July.
    6. Hirsch Ruchlin & Ralph Insinga, 2008. "A Review of Health-Utility Data for Osteoarthritis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(11), pages 925-935, November.
    7. repec:max:cprpbr:30 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Sun-Young Kim & Sue Goldie, 2008. "Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Vaccination Programmes," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 191-215, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anna García‐Altés, 2001. "Twenty years of health care economic analysis in Spain: are we doing well?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(8), pages 715-729, December.
    2. Alessandro Corso & Silvia Mangiacavalli & Federica Cocito & Cristiana Pascutto & Virginia Valeria Ferretti & Alessandra Pompa & Roberta Ciampichini & Lara Pochintesta & Lorenzo G Mantovani, 2013. "Long Term Evaluation of the Impact of Autologous Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-6, September.
    3. Erik Nord, 2015. "Cost-Value Analysis of Health Interventions: Introduction and Update on Methods and Preference Data," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 89-95, February.
    4. Michaël Schwarzinger & Jean‐Louis Lanoë & Erik Nord & Isabelle Durand‐Zaleski, 2004. "Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade‐off responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 171-181, February.
    5. Murray, Christopher J. L. & Acharya, Arnab K., 1997. "Understanding DALYs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 703-730, December.
    6. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    7. Damschroder, Laura J. & Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. & Ubel, Peter A., 2005. "The impact of considering adaptation in health state valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 267-277, July.
    8. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2009. "The correction of TTO-scores for utility curvature using a risk-free utility elicitation method," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 234-243, January.
    9. Paul F M Krabbe, 2013. "A Generalized Measurement Model to Quantify Health: The Multi-Attribute Preference Response Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-12, November.
    10. Rebecca Shaw & Paul Dolan & Aki Tsuchiya & Alan Williams & Peter Smith & Roger Burrows, 2001. "Development of a questionnaire to elicit public preferences regarding health inequalities," Working Papers 040cheop, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    11. Mark Sculpher & David Torgerson & Ron Goeree & Bernie O'Brien, 1999. "A critical structured review of economic evaluations of interventions for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis," Working Papers 169chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    12. Meltzer, David, 1997. "Accounting for future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 33-64, February.
    13. Mark Schreiner, 2001. "Evaluation and Microenterprise Programs," Development and Comp Systems 0108002, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 27 Dec 2001.
    14. Nord, Erik, 2013. "Disability weights in the Global Burden of Disease 2010: Unclear meaning and overstatement of international agreement," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 99-104.
    15. Erik Nord & Paul Menzel & Jeff Richardson, 2006. "Multi‐method approach to valuing health states: problems with meaning," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(2), pages 215-218, February.
    16. Frits H.J. Roest & Marinus J.C. Eijkemans & Jos Van Der Donk & Peter C. Levendag & Cees A. Meeuwis & Paul I.M. Schmitz & J. Dik F. Habbema, 1997. "The Use of Confidence Intervals for Individual Utilities:," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(3), pages 285-291, July.
    17. Alan Shiell & Penelope Hawe & Janelle Seymour, 1997. "Values and preferences are not necessarily the same," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(5), pages 515-518, September.
    18. Edward C. Mansley & Elamin H. Elbasha, 2003. "Preferences and person trade‐offs: forcing consistency or inconsistency in health‐related quality of life measures?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(3), pages 187-198, March.
    19. Jonathan R. Treadwell & Leslie A. Lenert, 1999. "Health Values and Prospect Theory," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(3), pages 344-352, August.
    20. Nancy Wolff & Thomas W. Helminiak, 1996. "Nonsampling measurement error in administrative data: Implications for economic evaluations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(6), pages 501-512, November.

    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:sae:medema:v:21:y:2001:i:4:p:288-294. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.