Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Health Valuation: Demonstrating the Value of Health and Lifespan

  • Commentary
  • Published:
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Craig BM, Mitchell SA. Examining the value of menopausal symptom relief among US women. Value Health. 2016;19(2):158–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Berg RL. Health Status Indexes: Proceedings of a Conference Conducted by Health Services Research, Tucson, Arizona, October 1–4, 1972. 1972. Tucson, Arizona: Hospital Research and Educational Trust.

  3. Smith MD, Drummond M, Brixner D. Moving the QALY forward: rationale for change. Value Health. 2009;12:S1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Edgar A. The ethical QALY : ethical issues in healthcare resource allocations. Haslemere: Euromed Communications; 1998. p. 168.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Craig B, Reeve B. Patient-reported outcomes and preference research: igniting the candle at both ends and the middle. ISPOR Connect Uniting Res Pract. 2012;18(5):8.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Attema AE, Brouwer WB. On the (not so) constant proportional trade-off in TTO. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(4):489–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Carr-Hill RA, Morris J. Current practice in obtaining the “Q” in QALYs: a cautionary note. BMJ. 1991;303(6804):699–701.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Craig BM. The duration effect: a link between TTO and VAS values. Health Econ. 2009;18(2):217–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dolan P, Gudex C. Time preference, duration and health state valuations. Health Econ. 1995;4(4):289–99.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Dolan P, Stalmeier P. The validity of time trade-off values in calculating QALYs: constant proportional time trade-off versus the proportional heuristic. J Health Econ. 2003;22(3):445–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Stalmeier PF, et al. On the assessment of preferences for health and duration: maximal endurable time and better than dead preferences. Med Care. 2007;45(9):835–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sutherland HJ, et al. Attitudes toward quality of survival. The concept of “maximal endurable time”. Med Decis Mak. 1982;2(3):299–309.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Whitty JA, et al. Assessment of individual patient preferences to inform clinical practice. The Patient: patient-centered outcomes research. 2017. doi:10.1007/s40271-017-0254-8.

  14. Craig BM, et al. US valuation of health outcomes measured using the PROMIS-29. Value Health. 2014;17(8):846–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Elly Stolk’s contribution to writing up this paper was supported by the EuroQol research foundation [project 2013300]. The authors gratefully acknowledge the administrative support for the preparation of this paper from the International Academy of Health Preference Research (IAHPR). Drs. Craig and Brown serve on the Board of the IAHPR Foundation. Dr. Craig is also a founding co-chair of the Health Preference Research special interest group at the International Society of Quality of Life Research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elly A. Stolk.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Elly Stolk, Benjamin Craig, Brendan Mulhern and Derek Brown declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stolk, E.A., Craig, B.M., Mulhern, B. et al. Health Valuation: Demonstrating the Value of Health and Lifespan. Patient 10, 515–517 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0252-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0252-x

Navigation