IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v13y2004i12p1203-1210.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Calculation of quality adjusted life years in the published literature: a review of methodology and transparency

Author

Listed:
  • Gerald Richardson
  • Andrea Manca

Abstract

Economic evaluations alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are increasingly being designed to prospectively collect patient–specific resource use and preference‐based health status (utility) data. This paper examines the ways in which preference‐based health status (utility) data are used to generate quality adjusted life years (QALYs). A literature review was carried out which identified 23 published cost utility analyses suitable for inclusion. The methodology employed to calculate QALYs was not always consistent, as well as being poorly reported. The use of different methodologies in the calculation of QALYs may influence the magnitude and direction of results of evaluations. Analysts need to be consistent and fully transparent in the methodology chosen to calculate QALYs. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerald Richardson & Andrea Manca, 2004. "Calculation of quality adjusted life years in the published literature: a review of methodology and transparency," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(12), pages 1203-1210, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:12:p:1203-1210
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.901
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.901
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.901?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. Nicholas Graves & Damian Walker & Rosalind Raine & Andrew Hutchings & Jennifer A. Roberts, 2002. "Cost data for individual patients included in clinical studies: no amount of statistical analysis can compensate for inadequate costing methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(8), pages 735-739, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Marion Haas & Marian Shanahan & Rob Anderson, 2007. "Assessing the costs of organised health programs: The case of the National Cervical Screening Program," Working Papers 2007/2, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    2. Richard Grieve & John Cairns & Simon G. Thompson, 2010. "Improving costing methods in multicentre economic evaluation: the use of multiple imputation for unit costs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(8), pages 939-954, August.
    3. Hana M. Broulíková & Petr Winkler & Marek Páv & Lucie Kondrátová, 2020. "Costs of Mental Health Services in Czechia: Facilitating an Evidence-Based Reform of Psychiatric Care," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 287-298, April.
    4. Manuel Gomes & Richard Grieve & Richard Nixon & W. J. Edmunds, 2012. "Statistical Methods for Cost-Effectiveness Analyses That Use Data from Cluster Randomized Trials," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(1), pages 209-220, January.
    5. Andrea Gabrio & Alexina J. Mason & Gianluca Baio, 2017. "Handling Missing Data in Within-Trial Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Review with Future Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 79-97, June.
    6. Ernst, Chris & Rouse, Paul, 2016. "Complexity, Tertiariness and Healthcare: Unresolved Issues of Reimbursement and Incentives," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 70(3), pages 227-247.
    7. Shelley Potter & Charlotte Davies & Gareth Davies & Caoimhe Rice & William Hollingworth, 2020. "The use of micro-costing in economic analyses of surgical interventions: a systematic review," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Alvin Kuo Jing Teo & Kiesha Prem & Yi Wang & Tripti Pande & Marina Smelyanskaya & Lisanne Gerstel & Monyrath Chry & Sovannary Tuot & Siyan Yi, 2021. "Economic Evaluation of Community Tuberculosis Active Case-Finding Approaches in Cambodia: A Quasi-Experimental Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-16, December.
    9. M. Carreras & M. García-Goñi & P. Ibern & J. Coderch & L. Vall-Llosera & J. Inoriza, 2011. "Estimates of patient costs related with population morbidity: can indirect costs affect the results?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(4), pages 289-295, August.
    10. Adam Martin & Alex Jones & Miranda Mugford & Ian Shemilt & Ruth Hancock & Raphael Wittenberg, 2012. "Methods Used To Identify And Measure Resource Use In Economic Evaluations: A Systematic Review Of Questionnaires For Older People," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(8), pages 1017-1022, August.
    11. Marian Shanahan & Emily Lancsar & Marion Haas & Bronwyn Lind & Don Weatherburn & Shuling Chen, 2004. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the New South Wales Adult Drug Court Program," Evaluation Review, , vol. 28(1), pages 3-27, February.
    12. Alfredo Palacios & Carlos Rojas-Roque & Lucas González & Ariel Bardach & Agustín Ciapponi & Claudia Peckaitis & Andres Pichon-Riviere & Federico Augustovski, 2021. "Direct Medical Costs, Productivity Loss Costs and Out-Of-Pocket Expenditures in Women with Breast Cancer in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(5), pages 485-502, May.
    13. Radhakrishnan, Muralikrishnan & van Gool, Kees & Hall, Jane & Delatycki, Martin & Massie, John, 2008. "Economic evaluation of cystic fibrosis screening: A review of the literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 133-147, 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:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:12:p:1203-1210. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.