Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal

Torrance, George W.

doi:10.1016/0167-6296(86)90020-2

Cited by 1,972 publications

(1,235 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,179

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Reliability was satisfactory for SG and TTO. In this study the RS method showed a reliability even higher than the two standard methods (see also Torrance, 1986), Taken together, a valid comparison of more than two valuation methods under highly controlled con ditions is feasible and a simple power transform ation suffices to describe the value function between health-state valuation methods. The RS method is in this sense almost congruent to SG and TTO.…”

Section: O N C L U S Io N S a N D Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

“…We replaced "being dead" with the "worst imaginable health state" primarily for reasons of standardis ation between methods. This choice can be justified based on the assumptions of the method (Torrance, 1986;Llewellyn-Thomas et aL, 1982). It was clearly stressed to the participants that both outcomes aris ing from the gamble would involve chronic health states.…”

Section: Standard Gamble (Sg )mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods

Krabbe

Essink‐Bot

Bonsel

1997

Social Science & Medicine

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Please be advised that this information was generated on 2018-05-09 and may be subject to change.P e r g a m o n Soc. Sci. Med, Vol. 45, N o. I l , pp. 1641-1652, 1997 © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. A ll rights reserved P I I : S 0 2 7 7 -9 5 3 6 (9 7 )0 0 0 9 9 -3 Printed in Great Britain 0277-9536/97 $17. Abstract-The objective of the study was to consider five methods for valuing health states with respect to their comparability (convergent validity, value functions) and reliability. Valuation tasks were per formed by 104 student volunteers using five frequently used valuation methods: standard gamble (SG), time trade-off (TTO), rating scale (RS), willingness-to-pay (WTP) and the paired comparisons method (PC). Throughout the study, the EuroQoI classification system was used to construct 13 health-state descriptions. Validity was investigated using the multitrait-multimethod (M TM M ) methodology. The extent to which results of one method could be predicted by another was examined by transformations. Reliability of the methods was studied parametrically with Generalis ability Theory (an A N O V A exten sion), as well as non-parametrically. Mean values for SG were slightly higher than TTO values. The RS could be distinguished from the other methods. After a simple power transformation, the RS values were found to be close to SG and TTO. Mean values of WTP were linearly related to SG and TTO, except at the extremes of the scale. However, the reliability of WTP was low and the number of incon sistencies substantial. Valuations made by the RS proved to be the most reliable. Paired comparisons did not provide stable results. In conclusion, the results of the parametric transformation function between RS and SG/TTO provide evidence to justify the current use of RS (with transformations) not only for reasons of feasibility and reliability but also for reasons o f comparability. A definite judgement on PC requires data of a complete design. Due to the specific structure of the correlation matrix which is inherent in valuing health states, we believe that full M TM M is not applicable for the standard analysis of health-state valuations.

show abstract

Section: O N C L U S Io N S a N D Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Section: Standard Gamble (Sg )mentioning

confidence: 99%

The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods

Krabbe

Essink‐Bot

Bonsel

1997

Social Science & Medicine

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One way of measuring this is to compare the patientsÕ self-rated quality-of-life scores at each level of severity of disease to the scores by the normal population (Raisch, 2000). The difference in quality-of-life can thus be used as a proxy to calculate the loss of QALY (Torrance, 1986 1998). The average reduction in quality-of-life in patients with MS is in the range of 0.30-0.5 compared with the normal population (Kobelt et al, 2000(Kobelt et al, , 2001.…”

Section: Informal Care In Dementia In Europementioning

confidence: 99%

Cost of disorders of the brain in Europe 2010

Gustavsson¹,

Svensson²,

Jacobi³

et al. 2011

European Neuropsychopharmacology

1,353

801

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Disability weights are often derived by expert judgements or surveys specialised to elicit health preferences, using time trade-off or standard gambles [19]. Here, I will compute disability weights from within the sample [2,20] by estimating generalised ordered probit regressions of self-reported health on the set of health variables described above.…”

Section: Computing a Comparable Health Indexmentioning

confidence: 99%

True health vs response styles: exploring cross‐country differences in self‐reported health

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The aim of this paper is to decompose cross-national differences in selfreported general health into parts explained by differences in "true" health, measured by diagnosed conditions and measurements, and parts explained by cross-cultural differences in response styles. The data used were drawn from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe 2004 (SHARE), using information from 22,731 individuals aged 50 and over from 10 European countries. Self-rated general health shows large cross-country variations. According to their self-reports, the healthiest respondents live in the Scandinavian countries and the least healthy live in Southern Europe. Counterfactual self-reported health distributions that assume identical response styles in each country show much less variation in self-reports than factual self-reports. Danish and Swedish respondents tend to largely over-rate their health (relative to the average) whereas Germans tend to under-rate their health. If differences in reporting styles are taken into account, cross-country variations in general health are reduced but not eliminated. Failing to account for differences in reporting styles may yield misleading results.

show abstract

Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal

Cited by 1,972 publications

References 36 publications

The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods

The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods

Cost of disorders of the brain in Europe 2010

True health vs response styles: exploring cross‐country differences in self‐reported health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About