Published Applications of the SF-6D

  • Norman R, Church J, Van den Berg B, Goodall S. Australian health-related quality of life population norms derived from the SF-6D. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 2013;37(1):17-23.
  • Van den Berg B. SF-6D population norms. Health Economics 2012;21(12):1508-1512.
  • Longworth L, Bryan S: An empirical comparison of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in liver transplants patients. Health Economics Dec 2003; 12 (12): 1061-1067
  • Hollingworth W, Deyo RA, Sullivan SD, Enmerson SS, Gray DT, Jarvik JG: The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF-36 derived health state o preferences in patients with low back pain. Health Economics 2002; 11:71-85.
  • Schackman BR, Goldie SJ, Freedberg KA, Losina E, Brazier JE, Weinstein MC: Comparison of health state utilities using community and patient preference weights derived from a survey of patients with HIV/AIDS. Medical Decision Making 2002; 22:27-38.
  • Walters S J, Brazier J E: Sample sizes for the SF-6D preference-based measure of health from the SF-36: a comparison of two methods. Health and quality of life outcomes (accepted). 2,
  • Brazier JE, Tsuchiya A, Roberts J, Busschbach J: A comparison of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics 2004; 13(90):873-884.
  • Walter S, Brazier JE: What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health and quality of life outcomes, 2003; 1:4.
  • O’Brien BJ, Spath M, Blackhouse G, Severens JL, Brazier JE: A view from the Bridge: agreement between the SF-6D utility algorithm and the Health utilities Index. Health Economics 2003; 12(11):975-982.
  • Kevin Morgan, Simon Dixon, Nigel Mathers, Joanne Thompson, Maureen Tomeny: Psychological treatment for insomnia in the management of long-term hypnotic drug use: a pragmatic randomised trial. British Journal of General Practice 2003; 53(497): 923-928. 2.
  • Marra CA, Esdaille JM, Guh D, Kopec JA, Brazier JE, Koehler BE, Chalmers A, Anis AH: Responsiveness of indirect measures in rheumatoid arthritis. Quality in Life research (accepted).
  • Kharroubi SA, O’Hagan A, Brazier JE: Estimating utilities from individual health preference data: a nonparametric Bayesian method. Applied Statistics (accepted).
  • Munro J, Nicholl J, Brazier J, Davey R, Cochrane T.: Cost effectiveness of a community-based exercise programme in over-65 year olds: cluster randomised trial. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (accepted).
  • Brazier JE, Roberts J: Estimating a preference-based index from the SF-12. Medical care 2004; 42 (9):851-859.
  • Marra CA, Esdaille JM, Guh D, Kopec JA, Brazier JE, Koehler BE, Chalmers A, Anis AH: A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing values in rheumatoid arthritis. Medical Care 2004; 42:1125-1131.
  • Kopec JA, Willison K: A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 56 2003; 317-325.
  • Shackman BR, Goldie SJ, Freedberg KA, Losina E, Brazier JE, Weinstein MC: Comparison of Health State Utilities Using Community and Patient Preference Weights Derived from a Survey of patients with HIV/AIDS. Med Decis Making 2002; 22:27-38.
  • Brazier JE, Roberts j, Deverill M: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics 2002; 21 :271-292.
  • Brazier JE, Usherwood T, Harper R, Thomas K: Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1998; 51:1115-28.
  • Brazier JE, Kolotkin RL,Crosby RD, Williams GR: Estimating a preference-based single index for the impact of weight on quality of life-lite (IWQOL-LITE) instrument from the SF-6D. Value in Health 2004; 7:490-498.
  • Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME: variation in the estimation of quality adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Medical Care 2003; 41:791-801.
  • Crawford B, Brazier JE: Evaluating direct and indirect measures of utility: Stability of the SF-6D in a rheumatoid arthritis population. Value in Health 2001; 4:71 (Abstract).
  • Crawford B, Brazier JE, Strand V, Doyle J: Treatment with Leflunomide improves the utility of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: An application of the SF-6D. value in Health 2001; 4:70 (Abstract).
  • Kopec JA, Willison KD: A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2003; 56:317-325.
  • Russel AS, Connery-Spady B, Mintz A, Maksymowych WP: The responsiveness of generic health status measures as assessed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving Infliximab. Journal of Rheumatology 2003; 30:941-7.
  • Szende A, Svensson K, Stahl E, Meszaros A, Berta GY: Psychometric and utility-based measures of health status of asthmatic patients with different disease control level. Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 22:537-47.
  • Walters SJ, Brazier JE: What ias the relationship between the minimally important differende and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2003; 1:4.
  • Wee HL, Cheung YB, Fong KY, Luo N, Machin D, Thumboo J: Are English and Chinese language versions of the SF-6D equivalent? A comparison from a population-based study. Clinical Therapeutics 2004; 26:1137-1148.
  • Kaplan RM, Groessl EJ, Sengupta N, Sieber WJ Ganiats TG: Comparison of Measured utility Scores and Imputed Scores from the SF-36 in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis. Med Care 2005; 43: 000-000.
  • Kortt MA, Clarke PM: Estimating utilities values for health states of overweight and obese individuals using the SF-36. Quality of Life Research 2005; 14:2177-2185.
  • Jull A, Walker N, Hackett M, Jones M, Rodgers A, Birchall N, Norton R, MacMahon S: Leg ulceration and perceived health: a population based case-control study. Age and Ageing 2004; 33:236-241.
  • Morrell CJ, Spiby H, Stewart P, Walters S, Morgan A: Costs and effectiveness of community postnatal support workers: randomised controlled trials. British medical Journal 2000; 321: 593-8.
  • Morrell CJ, Spiby H, Stewart P, Walters S, Morgan A: Costs and effectiveness of community postnatal support workers: randomised controlled trials. Health Technology Assessment 2000; 4(6).
  • Brazier JE, Roberts J, Deverill M: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. journal of Health Economics 2002; 21:271-292.
  • Walters SJ, Munro JF, Brazier JE: Using the SF-36 with older adults: a cross-sectional community based survey. Age & Ageing 2001; 30:337-343.
  • Russel AS, Conner-Spady B, Mintz A, WP Maksymowych: The Responsiveness of Generic Health Status measures as Assessed in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Receiving Infliximab. Rheumatol May 2003; 30(5): 941-7.
  • Marra CA, Esdaile JM, Guh D, Kopec JA, Brazier JE, Koehler BE, Chalmers A, Anis AH: A Comparison of Four Indirect Methods of Assessing Utility Values in Rheumatoid Arthritis. Medical Care November 2004; 42(11): 1125-1131.
  • Nicholson T, Gerard K, Mullee M, Mehta R, Roderick P, Armitage A: EQ-5D versus SF-6D in an Older, Chronically Ill Patient Group. Applied Health Economics & Health Policy 2004. 3(2):91-102.
  • Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Feeny DH: Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Quality Life Research Feb 2005;14(1):207-19.
  • Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day NA: A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Annals of Medicine Jul 2001;33(5):358-70.
  • Brazier JE, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J: A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economist Sept 2004: 13(9):873-84.
  • Lubetkin E and Gold M: Areas of decrement in health-related quality of life (HRQL): comparing the SF-12, EQ-5D, and HUI 3. Quality of Life Research Dec 2003;12(8):1059-67.
  • Nord E, Richardson J, Macarounas-Kirchmann K: Evaluation of health care versus personal evaluation of health states. Evidence on the validity of four health-state scaling instruments using Norwegian and Australian surveys. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1993 Fall;9(4):463-78.
  • ME Suarez-Almazor, C Kendall, JA Johnson, K Skeith and Vincent D: Use of health status measures in patients with low back pain in clinical settings. Comparison of specific, generic and preference-based instruments. Rheumatology Jul 2000; 39(7):783-90.
  • Bosch J and Hunink M: Comparison of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D in patients treated for intermittent claudication. Quality of Life Research 2000; 9(6):591-601.
  • Hollingworth W, Mackenzie R, Todd CJ and Dixon AK: Measuring changes in quality of life following magnetic resonance imaging of the knee: SF-36, EuroQol or Rosser index? Quality of Life Research Aug 1995; 4(4):325-34.
  • Schulz MW, Chen J, Woo HH, Keech M, Watson ME, Davey PJ: A comparison of techniques for eliciting patient preferences in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. The Journal of Urology Jul 2002;168(1):155-9.
  • Stavem K: Quality of life in epilepsy: comparison of four preference measures. Epilepsy Research Feb 1998 ;29(3):201-9.

If you know of any other publication, please contact Liz Metham