Commentary. In Praise of Studies That Use More Than One Generic Preference-Based Measure.

Clicks: 473
ID: 45691
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #1 of 8 articles by views in international journal of technology assessment in health care

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Generic preference-based (GPB) measures of health-related quality of life (HRQL) are widely used as outcome measures in cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses (CEA, CUA). Health technology assessment agencies favor GPB measures because they facilitate comparisons among conditions and because the scoring functions for these measures are based on community preferences. However, there is no gold standard HRQL measure, scores generated by GPB measures may differ importantly, and changes in scores may fail to detect important changes in HRQL. Therefore, to enhance the accumulation of empirical evidence on how well GPB measures perform, we advocate that investigators routinely use two (or more) GPB measures in each study.We discuss key measurement properties and present examples to illustrate differences in responsiveness for several major GPB measures across a wide variety of health contexts. We highlight the contributions of longitudinal head-to-head studies.There is substantial evidence that the performance of GPB measures varies importantly among diseases and health conditions. Scores are often not interchangeable. There are numerous examples of studies in which one GPB measure was responsive while another was not.Investigators should use two (or more) GPB measures. Study protocols should designate one measure as the primary outcome measure; the other measure(s) would be used in secondary analyses. As evidence accumulates it will better inform the relative strengths and weaknesses of alternative GPB measures in various clinical conditions. This will facilitate the selection and interpretation of GPB measures in future studies.
Reference Key
feeny2019commentaryinternational Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Feeny, David;Furlong, William;Torrance, George W;
Journal international journal of technology assessment in health care
Year 2019
DOI
10.1017/S0266462319000412
URL
Keywords
cost-utility analysis health-related quality of life cost-effectiveness analysis outcome measures health technology assessment comparative effectiveness research euroqol eq-5d generic preference-based measures health utilities index multi-attribute utility measures quality of well being scale quality-adjusted life-years short-form 6d

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.