1. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL:
Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes 3rd edition.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2005.
2. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): Guide to
the Methods of Technology Appraisal London, UK: NICE; 2008.
3. Maynard A, Bloor K: Our Certain Fate: Rationing in Health Care London,
UK: Office of Health Economics; 1998.
4. Torrance GW, Feeny D: Utilities and quality-adjusted life years.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1989, 5:559-575.
5. Mehrez A, Gafni A: Quality-adjusted life years, utility theory,
and healthy-years equivalents. Med Decis Making 1989,
9:142-149.
6. Nord E: An alternative to QALYs: the saved young life equivalent
(SAVE). BMJ 1992, 305:875-877.
7. Petrou S, Henderson J: Preference-based approaches to measuring
the benefits of perinatal care. Birth 2003, 30(4):217-226.
8. Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SS, Polsky D: Economic Evaluation in Clinical
Trials Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2007.
9. Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M: Decision Modelling for Health Economic
Evaluation Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2006.
10. Kaplan RM, Bush JW, Berry CC: Health status: types of validity
and the index of well-being. Health Serv Res. 1976,
11(4):478-507.
11. Rosser RM, Kind P: A scale of valuations of states of illness: is
there a social consensus? Int J Epidemiol 1978, 7:347-358.
12. Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, Boyle M: Multi-attribute preference
functions: Health Utilities Index. PharmacoEcon 1995,
7:503-520.
13. Brooks R: EQ-5D, the current state of play. Health Pol 1996,
37:53-72.
14. Apajasalo M, Sintonen C, Holmberg C, Sinkkonen J: Quality of life
in early adolescence: a sixteen-dimensional health-related
measure (16D). Qual Life Res 1996, 5:205-211.
15. Apajasalo M, Rautonen J, Holmberg C, Sinkkonen J: Quality of life
in pre-adolescence: a seventeen-dimensional health-related
measure (17D). Qual Life Res 1996, 5:532-538.
16. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Atherton Day N: A comparison of the
Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other
generic utility instruments. Ann Med 2001, 33:358-370.
17. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M: The estimation of a preferencebased
measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002,
21(2):271-292.
18. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kolinski M, Gandeck B: SF-36 Health Survey Manual
and Interpretation Guide Boston, US: The Health Institute, New
England Medical Centre; 1993.
19. Brazier J, Deverill M: A checklist for judging preference-based
measures of health related quality of life: learning from psychometrics.
Health Econ 1999, 8:41-51.
20. Morrell CJ, Spiby H, Stewart P, Walters S, Morgan A: Costs and
benefits of community postnatal support workers: a randomised
controlled trial. Health Technol Assess 2000, 4(6):1-100.
21. Morrell CJ, Spiby H, Stewart P, Walters S, Morgan A: Costs and
effectiveness of community postnatal support workers: randomised
controlled trial. BMJ 2000, 321:593-598.
22. Lundberg O, Manderbacka K: Assessing the reliability of a measure
of self-related health. Scand J Soc Med 1996, 24(3):218-224.
23. Idler EL, Benyamini Y: Self-related health and mortality: a
review of twenty-seven community studies. J Health Soc Behav
1997, 38(1):21-37.
24. Cox JL, Holden JM, Sagovsky R: Detection of postnatal depression:
Development of the 10-item Edinburgh Postnatal
Depression Scale. Br J Psychiatry 1987, 150:782-786.
25. EuroQol Group: EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement
of health-related quality of life. Health Pol 1990, 16:199-208.
26. Dolan P: Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med
Care 1997, 35(11):1095-1108.
27. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A: The time trade-off
method: results from a general population survey. Health
Econ 1996, 5:141-154.
28. Ware JE, Sherbourne D: The MOS 36-item short form health
survey (SF-36). 1. Conceptual framework and item selection.
Med Care 1992, 30:473-483.
29. Garratt AM, Ruta DA, Abdalla MI, Buckingham JK, Russell IT: The
SF-36 health survey questionnaire: an outcome measure
suitable for routine use within the NHS? BMJ 1993,
306:1440-1444.
30. Fryback DG, Lawrence WF, Martin PA, Klein R, Klein BE: Predicting
quality of well-being scores from the SF-36: results from the
Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study. Med Decis Making 1997,
17:1-9.
31. Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, Thomas K: Deriving a preference-
based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J
Clin Epidemiol 1998, 51:1115-1128.
32. Lundberg L, Johannesson M, Isacson DG, Borgquist L: The relationship
between health-state utilities and the SF-12 in a general
population. Med Decis Making 1999, 19:128-140.
33. Shmueli A: Subjective health status and health values in the
general population. Med Decis Making 1999, 19:122-127.
34. Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, Harper R, Booth A: A review of the
use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health
Technol Assess. 1999, 3(9):1-164.
35. Fayers P, Machin D: Quality of life: assessment, analysis and interpretation
Chichester, UK: Wiley; 2000.
36. Liang MH, Larson MG, Cullen KE, Schwartz JA: Comparative
measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status
instruments for arthritis research. Arthritis Rheum 1985,
28:542-547.
37. Mangione CM, Goldman L, Orav J, Marcantonio ER, Pedan A, Ludwig
LE, et al.: Health-related quality of life after elective surgery. J
Gen Intern Med 1997, 12(11):686-697.
38. Rockwood K, Joyce B, Stolee P: Use of goal attainment scaling in
measuring clinically important change in cognitive rehabilitation
patients. J Clin Epidemiol 1997, 50(5):581-588.
39. Wright JG, Young NL: A comparison of different indices of
responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 1997, 50(3):239-246.
40. Gordon JE, Powell C, Rockwood K: Goal attainment scaling as a
measure of clinically important change in nursing-home
patients. Age Ageing 1999, 28:275-281.
41. van Doorslaer E, Wagstaff A, Bleichrodt H, Calonge S, Gerdtham UG,
Gerfin M, et al.: Income-related inequalities in health: some
international comparisons. J Health Econ 1997, 16:93-112.
42. Stucki G, Liang MH, Fossel AH, Katz JN: Relative responsiveness
of condition-specific and generic health status measures in
degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Clin Epidemiol 1995,
48:1369-1378.
43. Drummond MF: Introducing economic and quality of life measurements
into clinical studies. Ann Med 2001, 33:344-349.
44. O'Brien BJ, Spath M, Blackhouse G, Severens JL, Dorian P, Brazier J:
A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF-6D utility
algorithm and the Health Utilities Index. Health Econ 2003,
12(11):975-981.
45. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): Antenatal
Care: Routine Care for the Healthy Pregnant Woman NICE Clinical
Guideline 62. London, UK: National Collaborating Centre for
Women's and Children's Health; 2008.
46. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): Antenatal
and Postnatal Mental Health. Clinical Management and Service Guidance
NICE Clinical Guideline 45; 2007. reissued April 2007.
47. Department of Health (DH): National Service Framework for Children,
Young People and Maternity Services London, UK: DH Publications;
2004.
48. Bick D, MacArthur C: The extent, severity and effect of health
problems after childbirth. Br J Midwifery 1995, 3:27-31.
49. Macarthur C, Winter H, Bick D, Knowles H, Lilford R, Henderson C,
et al.: Effects of redesigned community postnatal care on
womens' health 4 months after birth: a cluster randomised
controlled trial. Lancet 2002, 359(9304):378-385.
50. Morrell CJ, Slade P, Warner R, Paley G, Dixon S, Walters SJ, et al.:
Clinical effectiveness of health visitor training in psychologically
informed approaches for depression in postnatal
women: pragmatic cluster randomised trial in primary care.
BMJ 2009, 338:a3045. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a3045.
51. Murray L, Carothers AD: The validation of the Edinburgh Postnatal
Depression Scale on a community sample. Br J Psychiatry
1990, 157:288-290.
52. Longworth L, Bryan S: An empirical consideration of EQ-5D
and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Health Econ 2003,
12(12):1061-1067.
53. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J: A comparison of the
EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ
2004, 13(9):873-884.