Angelis, Aris Kanavos, Panos and Montibeller, Gilberto 2016. Resource Allocation and Priority Setting in Health Care: A Multi-criteria Decision Analysis Problem of Value?. Global Policy,
Brabyn, Sally Araya, Ricardo Barkham, Michael Bower, Peter Cooper, Cindy Duarte, Ana Kessler, David Knowles, Sarah Lovell, Karina Littlewood, Elizabeth Mattock, Richard Palmer, Stephen Pervin, Jodi Richards, David Tallon, Debbie White, David Walker, Simon Worthy, Gillian and Gilbody, Simon 2016. The second Randomised Evaluation of the Effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and Acceptability of Computerised Therapy (REEACT-2) trial: does the provision of telephone support enhance the effectiveness of computer-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy? A randomised controlled trial. Health Technology Assessment, Vol. 20, Issue. 89, p. 1.
Carlos, Ruth C. and Gazelle, G. Scott 2016. Handbook for Clinical Trials of Imaging and Image-Guided Interventions.
Dang, Amit Likhar, Nishkarsh and Alok, Utkarsh 2016. Importance of Economic Evaluation in Health Care: An Indian Perspective. Value in Health Regional Issues, Vol. 9, p. 78.
Herlitz, Anders and Horan, David 2016. Measuring needs for priority setting in healthcare planning and policy. Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 157, p. 96.
Hussain, Amjad I. Garratt, Andrew M. Beitnes, Jan Otto Gullestad, Lars and Pettersen, Kjell I. 2016. Validity of standard gamble utilities in patients referred for aortic valve replacement. Quality of Life Research, Vol. 25, Issue. 7, p. 1703.
Jørgensen, Tine Rikke Emborg, Charlotte Dahlen, Karianne Bøgelund, Mette and Carlborg, Andreas 2016. The effect of the medicine administration route on health-related quality of life: Results from a time trade-off survey in patients with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia in 2 Nordic countries. BMC Psychiatry, Vol. 16, Issue. 1,
Lamu, Admassu N. Gamst-Klaussen, Thor and Olsen, Jan Abel 2016. Preference Weighting of Health State Values: What Difference Does It Make, and Why?. Value in Health,
Lecky, Fiona Russell, Wanda Fuller, Gordon McClelland, Graham Pennington, Elspeth Goodacre, Steve Han, Kyee Curran, Andrew Holliman, Damien Freeman, Jennifer Chapman, Nathan Stevenson, Matt Byers, Sonia Mason, Suzanne Potter, Hugh Coats, Tim Mackway-Jones, Kevin Peters, Mary Shewan, Jane and Strong, Mark 2016. The Head Injury Transportation Straight to Neurosurgery (HITS-NS) randomised trial: a feasibility study. Health Technology Assessment, Vol. 20, Issue. 1, p. 1.
Makhdom, Asim M. Sinno, Hani Aldebeyan, Sultan Cota, Adam Hamdy, Reggie Charles Alzahrani, Mohammad and Janelle, Chantal 2016. Bilateral Hallux Valgus: A Utility Outcome Score Assessment. The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, Vol. 55, Issue. 5, p. 944.
Myojin, Tomoya Ojima, Toshiyuki Kikuchi, Keiko Okada, Eisaku Shibata, Yosuke Nakamura, Mieko and Hashimoto, Shuji 2016. Orthopedic, ophthalmic, and psychiatric diseases primarily affect activity limitation for Japanese males and females: Based on the Comprehensive Survey of Living Conditions. Journal of Epidemiology,
Petrou, Stavros Kim, Sung Wook McParland, Penny and Boyle, Elaine M. 2016. Mode of Delivery and Long-Term Health-Related Quality-of-Life Outcomes: A Prospective Population-Based Study. Birth,
Pieterse, Arwen H. and Stiggelbout, Anne M. 2016. Handbook of Health Decision Science.
Retèl, Valesca P. van der Molen, Lisette Steuten, Lotte M. G. van den Brekel, Michiel W. and Hilgers, Frans J. M. 2016. A cost-effectiveness analysis of using TheraBite in a preventive exercise program for patients with advanced head and neck cancer treated with concomitant chemo-radiotherapy. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Vol. 273, Issue. 3, p. 709.
Shin, Jungwoo Kim, Yeunjoong Nam, Heekoo and Cho, Youngsang 2016. Economic evaluation of healthcare technology improving the quality of social life: the case of assistive technology for the disabled and elderly. Applied Economics, Vol. 48, Issue. 15, p. 1361.
van Nooten, F. E. van Exel, N.J.A. Eriksson, D. and Brouwer, W.B.F. 2016. “Back to the future”: Influence of beliefs regarding the future on TTO answers. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, Vol. 14, Issue. 1,
Weernink, Marieke G.M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Catharina G.M. IJzerman, Maarten J. and van Til, Janine A. 2016. Valuing Treatments for Parkinson Disease Incorporating Process Utility: Performance of Best-Worst Scaling, Time Trade-Off, and Visual Analogue Scales. Value in Health, Vol. 19, Issue. 2, p. 226.
Bailey, Julia Mann, Sue Wayal, Sonali Hunter, Rachael Free, Caroline Abraham, Charles and Murray, Elizabeth 2015. Sexual health promotion for young people delivered via digital media: a scoping review. Public Health Research, Vol. 3, Issue. 13, p. 1.
Boehler, Christian EH de Graaf, Gimon Steuten, Lotte Yang, Yaling and Abadie, Fabienne 2015. Development of a web-based tool for the assessment of health and economic outcomes of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP on AHA). BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, Vol. 15, Issue. S3,
Harrison, Mark Marra, Carlo Shojania, Kam and Bansback, Nick 2015. Societal preferences for rheumatoid arthritis treatments: evidence from a discrete choice experiment. Rheumatology, Vol. 54, Issue. 10, p. 1816.
Utilities and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) are reviewed, with particular focus on their use in technology assessment. This article provides a broad overview and perspective on these two techniques and their interrelationship, with reference to other sources for details of implementation. The historical development, assumptions, strengths/weaknesses, and applications of each are summarized.
Utilities are specifically designed for individual decision-making under uncertainty, but, with additional assumptions, utilities can be aggregated across individuals to provide a group utility function. QALYs are designed to aggregate in a single summary measure the total health improvement for a group of individuals, capturing improvements from impacts on both quantity of life and quality of life– with quality of life broadly defined. Utilities can be used as the quality-adjustment weights for QALYs; they are particularly appropriate for that purpose, and this combination provides a powerful and highly useful variation on cost-effectiveness analysis known as cost-utility analysis.
This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.