This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0272989X07312711v1 28/4/500    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted 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 Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Janssen, M. F. Articles by Bonsel, G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Janssen, M. F. Articles by Bonsel, G. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Feasibility and Reliability of the Annual Profile Method for Deriving QALYs for Short-Term Health Conditions

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: m.f.janssen{at}amc.uva.nl.

	Abstract

Introduction. When health varies over time, the standard quality-adjusted life year model operates under the assumptions of time utility independence within each health state and additive independence between health states. These assumptions can be relaxed by an integral assessment of disease severity over time. The authors present the annual profile method (APM), which values health profiles on a 1-year base, and test the APM for feasibility, consistency, and test-retest reliability. Methods. A population panel, general practitioners, medical advisers, and a panel of the Dutch Consumers Association valued vignettes for 46 disease stages using the visual analog scale (VAS) and time tradeoff (TTO) methods. Vignettes contained disease-specific information, a generic description (EQ-6D5L), a description of the disease course over time, and a visual representation of the disease. Feasibility was tested by missing and inconsistent responses. Consistency between and within panels wastested with a generalizability study, analysis of variance, and standard correlation coefficients. Test-retest reliability was tested with a generalizability study and intraclass correlation coefficients. Results. Missing and inconsistentresponses were < 2.6%. The valuations were consistent across panels, with generalizability coefficients of 0.78 (VAS) and 0.64 (TTO). Within the main population panel, internal consistency was satisfactory and the influence of background characteristics negligible. Test-retest reliability was high, with generalizability coefficients of 0.90 (VAS) and 0.72 (TTO). Conclusion. Feasibility and reliability of the APM for realistic health profiles are good to excellent. The APM is a promising step to bridge the gap between the quality-adjusted life year methodology and clinical reality. Key words: quality-adjusted life years; methodology; utility measurement; reliability; health status. (Med Decis Making XXXX;XX:xx–xx)

First published on April 17, 2008, doi:10.1177/0272989X07312711

Medical Decision Making 2008;28:500.

A more recent version of this article appeared on July 1, 2008


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