IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v33y2015i8p867-877.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Checklist for Reporting Valuation Studies of Multi-Attribute Utility-Based Instruments (CREATE)

Author

Listed:
  • Feng Xie
  • A. Pickard
  • Paul Krabbe
  • Dennis Revicki
  • Rosalie Viney
  • Nancy Devlin
  • David Feeny

Abstract

Multi-attribute utility-based instruments (MAUIs) assess health status and provide an index score on the full health-dead scale, and are widely used to support reimbursement decisions for new healthcare interventions worldwide. A valuation study is a key part of the development of MAUIs, with the primary goal of developing a scoring algorithm through eliciting societal preferences. We developed the 21-item Checklist for REporting VAluaTion StudiEs (CREATE) by following a modified two-round Delphi panel approach plus an email survey. CREATE is intended to promote good reporting practice as well as guiding developers to thoroughly and carefully think through key methodological elements in designing valuation studies. Copyright The Author(s) 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Feng Xie & A. Pickard & Paul Krabbe & Dennis Revicki & Rosalie Viney & Nancy Devlin & David Feeny, 2015. "A Checklist for Reporting Valuation Studies of Multi-Attribute Utility-Based Instruments (CREATE)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(8), pages 867-877, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:33:y:2015:i:8:p:867-877
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-015-0292-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s40273-015-0292-9
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-015-0292-9?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
    2. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 361-367, May.
    3. Aki Tsuchiya & Shunya Ikeda & Naoki Ikegami & Shuzo Nishimura & Ikuro Sakai & Takashi Fukuda & Chisato Hamashima & Akinori Hisashige & Makoto Tamura, 2002. "Estimating an EQ‐5D population value set: the case of Japan," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(4), pages 341-353, June.
    4. G Torrance & Y Zhang & D Feeny & W Furlong & R Barr, 1992. "Multi-attribute Utility Functions for a Comprehensive Health Status Classification System: Health Utilities Index Mark 2," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 1992-18, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    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. Michael J. Zoratti & A. Simon Pickard & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Daniel Ollendorf & Andrew Lloyd & Kelvin K W Chan & Don Husereau & John E. Brazier & Murray Krahn & Mitchell Levine & Lehana Thabane & Fe, 2021. "Evaluating the conduct and application of health utility studies: a review of critical appraisal tools and reporting checklists," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 723-733, July.
    2. Peasgood, Tessa & Bourke, Mackenzie & Devlin, Nancy & Rowen, Donna & Yang, Yaling & Dalziel, Kim, 2023. "Randomised comparison of online interviews versus face-to-face interviews to value health states," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 323(C).
    3. Tonya Moen Hansen & Knut Stavem & Kim Rand, 2023. "Completing the time trade-off with respondents who are older, in poorer health or with an immigrant background in an EQ-5D-5L valuation study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(6), pages 877-884, August.
    4. Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Yan Feng & Brendan Mulhern & Ben van Hout, 2018. "Valuing health‐related quality of life: An EQ‐5D‐5L value set for England," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 7-22, January.
    5. Finch, Aureliano Paolo & Meregaglia, Michela & Ciani, Oriana & Roudijk, Bram & Jommi, Claudio, 2022. "An EQ-5D-5L value set for Italy using videoconferencing interviews and feasibility of a new mode of administration," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    6. Mina Bahrampour & Joshua Byrnes & Richard Norman & Paul A. Scuffham & Martin Downes, 2020. "Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 983-992, September.

    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. Samer Kharroubi, 2015. "A Comparison of Japan and UK SF-6D Health-State Valuations Using a Non-Parametric Bayesian Method," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 409-420, August.
    2. Samer A. Kharroubi & Yara Beyh & Marwa Diab El Harake & Dalia Dawoud & Donna Rowen & John Brazier, 2020. "Examining the Feasibility and Acceptability of Valuing the Arabic Version of SF-6D in a Lebanese Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-15, February.
    3. Anirban Basu & William Dale & Arthur Elstein & David Meltzer, 2009. "A linear index for predicting joint health‐states utilities from single health‐states utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 403-419, April.
    4. McCabe, Christopher & Brazier, John & Gilks, Peter & Tsuchiya, Aki & Roberts, Jennifer & O'Hagan, Anthony & Stevens, Katherine, 2006. "Using rank data to estimate health state utility models," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 418-431, May.
    5. Stevens, K, 2010. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility Index 9D (CHU9D)," MPRA Paper 29938, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Christopher McCabe & Katherine Stevens & Jennifer Roberts & John Brazier, 2005. "Health state values for the HUI 2 descriptive system: results from a UK survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 231-244, March.
    7. Munir A. Khan & Jeff Richardson, 2019. "Is the Validity of Cost Utility Analysis Improved When Utility is Measured by an Instrument with ‘Home-Country’ Weights? Evidence from Six Western Countries," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 1-15, August.
    8. Rowen, D & Brazier, J & Tsuchiya, A & Hernández, M & Ibbotson, R, 2009. "The simultaneous valuation of states from multiple instruments using ranking and VAS data: methods and preliminary results," MPRA Paper 29841, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Lisa R. Ulrich & Juliana J. Petersen & Karola Mergenthal & Andrea Berghold & Gudrun Pregartner & Rolf Holle & Andrea Siebenhofer, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of case management for optimized antithrombotic treatment in German general practices compared to usual care – results from the PICANT trial," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    10. Nan Luo & Pei Wang & Julian Thumboo & Yee-Wei Lim & Hubertus Vrijhoef, 2014. "Valuation of EQ-5D-3L Health States in Singapore: Modeling of Time Trade-Off Values for 80 Empirically Observed Health States," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 495-507, May.
    11. Katherine Stevens, 2012. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D Index," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 729-747, August.
    12. Rodríguez-Míguez, E. & Abellán-Perpiñán, J.M. & Alvarez, X.C. & González, X.M. & Sampayo, A.R., 2016. "The DEP-6D, a new preference-based measure to assess health states of dependency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 210-219.
    13. L. M. Lamers & J. McDonnell & P. F. M. Stalmeier & P. F. M. Krabbe & J. J. V. Busschbach, 2006. "The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ‐5D valuation studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(10), pages 1121-1132, October.
    14. Musal, R. Muzaffer & Soyer, Refik & McCabe, Christopher & Kharroubi, Samer A., 2012. "Estimating the population utility function: A parametric Bayesian approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 538-547.
    15. Garry R. Barton & Tracey H. Sach & Anthony J. Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Michael Doherty & David K. Whynes & Kenneth R. Muir, 2008. "A comparison of the performance of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D for individuals aged ≥ 45 years," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 815-832, July.
    16. P. Wang & M. Li & G. Liu & J. Thumboo & N. Luo, 2015. "Do Chinese have similar health-state preferences? A comparison of mainland Chinese and Singaporean Chinese," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(8), pages 857-863, November.
    17. John Brazier & Jennifer Roberts & Aki Tsuchiya & Jan Busschbach, 2004. "A comparison of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D across seven patient groups," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 873-884, September.
    18. O'Hagan, A & Brazier, JE & Kharroubi, SA, 2007. "A comparison of United States and United Kingdom EQ-5D health states valuations using a nonparametric Bayesian method," MPRA Paper 29806, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. W. Greiner & C. Claes & J. J. V. Busschbach & J.-M. Schulenburg, 2005. "Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(2), pages 124-130, June.
    20. Lisa Prosser & James Hammitt & Ron Keren, 2007. "Measuring Health Preferences for Use in Cost-Utility and Cost-Benefit Analyses of Interventions in Children," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(9), pages 713-726, September.

    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:spr:pharme:v:33:y:2015:i:8:p:867-877. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.