Petrou, Stavros, Morrell, Jane and Spiby, Helen. (2009) Assessing the empirical validity of alternative multi-attribute utility measures in the maternity context. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, Vol.7 (No.40). ISSN 1477-7525

Preview

PDF WRAP_Petrou_1477-7525-7-40.pdf - Published Version - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader Download (359Kb)

Abstract

Multi-attribute utility measures are preference-based health-related quality of life measures that have been developed to inform economic evaluations of health care interventions. The objective of this study was to compare the empirical validity of two multi-attribute utility measures (EQ-5D and SF-6D) based on hypothetical preferences in a large maternity population in England.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	H Social Sciences > HQ The family. Marriage. Woman R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine
Divisions:	Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Health status indicators, Mothers -- Health and hygiene, Mothers -- Statistics
Journal or Publication Title:	Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Publisher:	BioMed Central Ltd.
ISSN:	1477-7525
Date:	6 May 2009
Volume:	Vol.7
Number:	No.40
Identification Number:	10.1186/1477-7525-7-40
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Access rights to Published version:	Open Access
Funder:	Medical Research Council (Great Britain) (MRC), National Coordinating Centre for Research Capacity Development (Great Britain)
References:	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.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/36489

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item