Medical Decision Making

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here to browse AJSM online!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gabriel, S. E.
Right arrow Articles by Tosteson, A. N.A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gabriel, S. E.
Right arrow Articles by Tosteson, A. N.A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Medical Decision Making, Vol. 19, No. 2, 141-148 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900204

Health-related Quality of Life in Economic Evaluations for Osteoporosis

Whose Values Should We Use?

Sherine E. Gabriel

Terry S. Kneeland

L. Joseph Melton

Megan M. Moncur

Bruce Ettinger

Anna N.A. Tosteson

Objective. To determine whether the source of preference scores has an impact on the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis interventions. Methods. Three groups of sub jects aged ≥50 years—199 women without fractures and 183 women with osteopo rotic fractures—were studied at two major medical centers. Medical history and co morbidity data were obtained from review of medical records. Health status was measured using the Medical Outcomes Study SF-36. Two preference-classification systems (i.e., quality of well-being scores estimated from SF-36 subscales and the Health Utilities Index) were also used. Preferences for current health and for hypo thetical health states were assessed using a time tradeoff and implemented with a computer-based utility instrument (U-Titer). Wilcoxon's rank-sum and signed-rank tests were used to compare preferences for current health among women with osteoporotic fractures with 1) directly assessed preferences for osteoporosis health states deline ated by outcome descriptions and 2) preference scores obtained from the preference- classification systems. The potential impact of the source of the preference scores was estimated using a Markov state-transition model. Results. The preference scores for hypothetical osteoporosis health states of the non-fracture subjects were approximately 50% lower than those of the women who had actually experienced the health state. Differences of this magnitude would change the estimated cost-effectiveness of a 15- year intervention (which for approximately $280 per year prevents hip fracture about as well as hormone-replacement therapy) from $25,000 per QALY gained when non- fracture subjects' preferences were used to $94,000 per QALY gained when fracture subjects' preferences were used. Preferences estimated using the Health Utilities Index and those directly measured in fracture subjects using the time tradeoff did not differ significantly. Conclusions. The Health Utilities Index preference-classification system may provide an efficient and inexpensive alternative to direct utility assessment in this patient group. However, there are important differences in the valuation of health states by women who have experienced osteoporotic fractures compared with women who have not. Cost-utility analyses based solely on fracture patients' preferences for os teoporotic health states may undervalue prevention. Key words: osteoporosis; quality of life; utility assessment; patients' preferences. (Med Decis Making 1999;19:141- 148)


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Med Decis MakingHome page
D. Mortimer and L. Segal
Comparing the Incomparable? A Systematic Review of Competing Techniques for Converting Descriptive Measures of Health Status into QALY-Weights
Med Decis Making, February 1, 2008; 28(1): 66 - 89.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Med Decis MakingHome page
W. L. Nelson, P. K. J. Han, A. Fagerlin, M. Stefanek, and P. A. Ubel
Rethinking the Objectives of Decision Aids: A Call for Conceptual Clarity
Med Decis Making, October 1, 2007; 27(5): 609 - 618.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Med Decis MakingHome page
K. E. Bremner, C. A. K. Y. Chong, G. Tomlinson, S. M. H. Alibhai, and M. D. Krahn
A Review and Meta-Analysis of Prostate Cancer Utilities
Med Decis Making, May 1, 2007; 27(3): 288 - 298.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
J Bone Joint Surg BrHome page
P. Mattsson, A. Alberts, G. Dahlberg, M. Sohlman, H. C. Hyldahl, and S. Larsson
Resorbable cement for the augmentation of internally-fixed unstable trochanteric fractures: A PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMISED MULTICENTRE STUDY
J Bone Joint Surg Br, September 1, 2005; 87-B(9): 1203 - 1209.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Arch Intern MedHome page
N. F. Col, G. Weber, A. Stiggelbout, J. Chuo, R. D'Agostino, and P. Corso
Short-term Menopausal Hormone Therapy for Symptom Relief: An Updated Decision Model
Arch Intern Med, August 9, 2004; 164(15): 1634 - 1640.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Med Decis MakingHome page
T. A. Lee, W. Hollingworth, and S. D. Sullivan
Comparison of Directly Elicited Preferences to Preferences Derived from the SF-36 in Adults with Asthma
Med Decis Making, July 1, 2003; 23(4): 323 - 334.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
JCOHome page
V. R. Grann, J. S. Jacobson, D. Thomason, D. Hershman, D. F. Heitjan, and A. I. Neugut
Effect of Prevention Strategies on Survival and Quality-Adjusted Survival of Women With BRCA1/2 Mutations: An Updated Decision Analysis
J. Clin. Oncol., May 15, 2002; 20(10): 2520 - 2529.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann Rheum DisHome page
S E Gabriel, P Tugwell, and M Drummond
Progress towards an OMERACT-ILAR guideline for economic evaluations in rheumatology
Ann Rheum Dis, April 1, 2002; 61(4): 370 - 373.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JCOHome page
D. Hershman, V. Sundararajan, J. S. Jacobson, D. F. Heitjan, A. I. Neugut, and V. R. Grann
Outcomes of Tamoxifen Chemoprevention for Breast Cancer in Very High-Risk Women: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
J. Clin. Oncol., January 1, 2002; 20(1): 9 - 16.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANN INTERN MEDHome page
J. Beaird
Cost-Effectiveness of Sildenafil
Ann Intern Med, February 6, 2001; 134(3): 249 - 249.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Med Decis MakingHome page
P. J. Neumann, E. A. Sandberg, S. S. Araki, K. M. Kuntz, D. Feeny, and M. C. Weinstein
A Comparison of HU12 and HU13 Utility Scores in Alzheimer's Disease
Med Decis Making, October 1, 2000; 20(4): 413 - 422.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Rheumatology (Oxford)Home page
U. Slothuus and R. G. Brooks
Willingness to pay in arthritis: a Danish contribution
Rheumatology, July 1, 2000; 39(7): 791 - 799.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Med Decis MakingHome page
J. S. Swan, D. G. Fryback, W. F. Lawrence, F. Sainfort, M. E. Hagenauer, and D. M. Heisey
A Time-tradeoff Method for Cost--Efifectiveness Models Applied to Radiology
Med Decis Making, January 1, 2000; 20(1): 79 - 88.
[Abstract] [PDF]