IMPACT OF THE RECALL PERIOD ON MEASURING HEALTH UTILITIES FOR ACUTE EVENTS

被引:24
作者
Bansback, Nick [2 ]
Sun, Huiying [2 ]
Guh, Daphne P. [2 ]
Li, Xin [1 ,2 ]
Nosyk, Bohdan [2 ]
Griffin, Susan [3 ]
Barnett, Paul G. [4 ]
Anis, Aslam H. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ British Columbia, Fac Med, Dept Hlth Care & Epidemiol, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada
[2] St Pauls Hosp, Ctr Hlth Evaluat & Outcome Sci, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Canada
[3] Univ York, Ctr Hlth Econ, York YO10 5DD, N Yorkshire, England
[4] Stanford Univ, Sch Med, Dept Hlth Res & Policy, VA Hlth Econ Resource Ctr, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
health utilities; recall;
D O I
10.1002/hec.1351
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
The impact of healthcare interventions on health utility values is most frequently measured using a preference-based instrument. Each of the available instruments instructs the respondent to report their health status over different recall periods ranging from the current day to the past month. In an ongoing randomised controlled trial in patients with advanced HIV disease, the impact of using a preference-based instrument with a I-week recall period vs a I day recall period (e.g. today) for capturing recently resolved serious adverse events was measured. The results suggest that the instrument with a 1-week recall period gave lower utility values for recently resolved events in comparison with the instrument with a 1-day recall period. A plausible interpretation of these results is that the recall period was adhered to; for example, patients ignored the impact of recently resolved events in their response if the questionnaire asked them only about their health today. While there are limitations to our Study, we believe further consideration should be given to the recall period used for preference-based instruments, and future research should examine other patient groups using a single instrument With Multiple recall periods. Copyright (D 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:1413 / 1419
页数:7
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]   The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36 [J].
Brazier, J ;
Roberts, J ;
Deverill, M .
JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2002, 21 (02) :271-292
[2]   EuroQol: The current state of play [J].
Brooks, R .
HEALTH POLICY, 1996, 37 (01) :53-72
[3]  
BROWN ST, 2004, INT C AIDS, V15
[4]  
Dolan P, 1995, SOCIAL TARIFF EUROQO
[5]   Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system [J].
Feeny, D ;
Furlong, W ;
Torrance, GW ;
Goldsmith, CH ;
Zhu, ZL ;
DePauw, S ;
Denton, M ;
Boyle, M .
MEDICAL CARE, 2002, 40 (02) :113-128
[6]   The Health Utilities Index (HUI®): Concepts, measurement properties and applications [J].
John Horsman ;
William Furlong ;
David Feeny ;
George Torrance .
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1 (1)
[7]  
Howard GS., 1979, APPL PSYCH MEAS, V3, P1, DOI DOI 10.1177/014662167900300101
[8]   Valuations of EQ-5D health states - Are the United States and United kingdom different? [J].
Johnson, JA ;
Luo, N ;
Shaw, JW ;
Kind, P ;
Coons, SJ .
MEDICAL CARE, 2005, 43 (03) :221-228
[9]  
Keller SD, 1997, HEALTH SERV RES, V32, P367
[10]   A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life [J].
Kopec, JA ;
Willison, KD .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2003, 56 (04) :317-325