Results 61 to 75 of 126.
Preparation for the Re-valuation of the EQ-5D Tariff (PRET) project: Overview of methods for project
Preparation for the Re-valuation of the EQ-5D Tariff (PRET) project: Overview of methods for project stages 1-3
A Tsuchiya, B Mulhern, on behalf of the PRET project team
J Brazier, BV Hout, D Rowen
Development of the Child Amblyopia Treatment Questionnaire (CAT-QoL): a disease-specific health related quality of life (HRQOL) measure for amblyopia.
JE Brazier, S Dixon, S Palfreyman, P Shackley
The use of qualitative methods in developing the descriptive systems of preference based measures of health related quality of life for use in economic evaluation
S Palfreyman, K Stevens
Using attitudinal information to explore preferences toward compulsory public health programmes: a willingness to pay study
Modelling the cost effectiveness of a potential new neck collar for patients with motor neurone disease
S Dixon, W Tindale, CJ McDermott, N Heron, A McCarthy, PJ Shaw, N Latimer
Estimating the minimally important difference (MID) of the Diabetes Health Profile-18 (DHP-18) for Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
B Mulhern, K Meadows
Exploring the relationship between two health state classification systems and happiness using a large patient data set
JE Brazier, C Mukuria
Objective: Resource allocation informed by cost-utility analysis requires that the benefits are comparable across patient groups and interventions. One option is to recommend the use of one generic utility measure, but this raises the issue of comparability when the preferred measure is inappropriate or unavailable. Many cancer trials do not include generic measures such as EQ-5D and instead include condition-specific measures and use these to generate utility estimates. We analyse the comparability of generic, condition-specific and mapped utility values for a Multiple Myeloma cancer patient dataset.
D Rowan, JE Brazier, T Young, S Gaugris
JE Brazier, P Tappenden, S Dixon, J Tosh, P Thokala, M Stevenson, A Tsuhiya
Estimating a preference-based index from the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation – Outcome Measure (CORE-OM): valuation of CORE-6D
JE Brazier, D Rowan
Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis for febrile neutropenia in patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in the United Kingdom (UK)
S Whyte, M Stevenson, K Cooper, R Akehurst
Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis for febrile neutropenia in breast cancer in the United Kingdom
S Whyte, K Cooper, M Stevenson, J Madan, R Akehurst
Introduction The role of models in supporting health policy decisions is reliant on model credibility. Credibility is fundamentally determined by the choices and judgements that people make in the process of developing a model. However, the method of uncovering choices and making judgements in model development is largely unreported and is not addressed by modelling methods guidance.
Methods This qualitative study was part of a project examining errors in health technology assessment models. In-depth interviews with academic and commercial modellers were used to obtain descriptions of the model development process. Data were analysed using framework analysis and interpreted in the context of the methodological literature.
Results The activities involved in developing models were characterised according to the themes; understanding the decision problem, conceptual modelling, model implementation, model checking, and engaging with the decision maker. Finding and using evidence was frequently mentioned across these themes. There was marked variation between practitioners in the extent to which conceptual modelling was recognised as an activity distinct from model implementation.
Discussion Methodological approaches to addressing model credibility described in the wider modelling literature highlight the necessity to disentangle the conceptual modelling and implementation activities. Whilst interviewees talked of judgements and choice making throughout model development, discussion indicated that these were based upon skills and experience with no discussion of formal approaches. Methods are required that provide for a systematic approach to uncovering choices, to generating a shared view of consensus and divergence, and for making judgements and choices in model development.
J Chilcott, P Tappenden, S Paisley, A Rawdin, M Johnson, E Kaltenthaler