This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Dolan, P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Dolan, P. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Whose Preferences Count?

An important consideration when choosing how to allocate health care resources is the improvements in patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) that alternative allocations generate. There is considerable debate about whose preferences should be used when measuring and valuing HRQoL. This debate has usually been in terms of whether the values of patients or the general public are the most appropriate. It is argued in this paper that this is a false dichotomy that does not facilitate understanding of empirical evidence. Nor, more importantly, does it address one of the most important issues in the debate about whose preferences count, that is, whether the fact that many people adapt to poor health states should be taken into account when ascribing values to those states. A conceptual framework is developed to facilitate a more fruitful discussion of the issues relating to the question of whose preferences should count. Key words: health-related quality of life; patients' preferences; resource allocation; elicitation methods. (Med Decis Making 1999; 19:482-486)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 19, No. 4, 482-486 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900416


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. D. Yusen Technology and Outcomes Assessment in Lung Transplantation Proceedings of the ATS, January 15, 2009; 6(1): 128 - 136. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. A. Prosser and E. Wittenberg Do Risk Attitudes Differ across Domains and Respondent Types? Med Decis Making, May 1, 2007; 27(3): 281 - 287. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. A. Hayman, M. U. Kabeto, M. J. Schipper, J. E. Bennett, F. A. Vicini, and L. J. Pierce Assessing the Benefit of Radiation Therapy After Breast-Conserving Surgery for Ductal Carcinoma-In-Situ J. Clin. Oncol., August 1, 2005; 23(22): 5171 - 5177. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T M Arnesen and O F Norheim Quantifying quality of life for economic analysis: time out for time trade off Med. Humanit., December 1, 2003; 29(2): 81 - 86. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. A Myers, K. M McPherson, W. J Taylor, M. Weatherall, and H. K McNaughton Duration of condition is unrelated to health-state valuation on the EuroQoL Clinical Rehabilitation, February 1, 2003; 17(2): 209 - 215. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. R. Schackman, S. J. Goldie, K. A. Freedberg, E. Losina, J. Brazier, and M. C. Weinstein Comparison of Health State Utilities Using Community and Patient Preference Weights Derived from a Survey of Patients with HIV/AIDS Med Decis Making, February 1, 2002; 22(1): 27 - 38. [Abstract] [PDF]