Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring the value of health-related quality of life

  • Chapter
Quality of Life Impairment in Schizophrenia, Mood and Anxiety Disorders

  • 2068 Accesses

Abstract

Health-related quality of life is concerned with the relationship between the effect of treatment on the patient’s life with society’s value for this effect. It is only through balancing these two concerns that transparent decisions concerning the best choice of treatment at the intervention level and, at the policy level, the allocation of scarce health resources can incorporate both the patient’s and society’s views. Where these decisions are important, the appropriate form of evaluation is cost-utility analysis (CUA). With rising health care costs, the ageing of populations and the determination of governments to cap health care expenditure, the mental health field will increasingly be asked for evidence of its cost-effectiveness. In the absence of such evidence, patients access to mental health services in the future may be hindered and the choice of treatment restricted as decision-makers may be disinclined to increase or even maintain funding.

This paper reviews the axioms of cost-utility analysis and the role of multi-attribute (MAU) utility instruments. Seven leading instruments are reviewed, and examples of their use in cost-utility analysis in the mental health field are presented. It is concluded that none of the existing instruments fully meet the axioms of either utility or measurement theory, and that the instruments provide HRQoL estimates that are so different that study outcomes are likely to be as much a function of the instrument chosen for a particular study as the effectiveness of the intervention itself.

It is recommended that mental health professionals undertaking CUAs review available instruments carefully, use two MAU-instruments in any particular study, and report both sets of results. The shortcomings of existing MAU-instruments should not be taken as a reason to avoid economic evaluation; at the moment they are the only practical way of capturing the balance described above. Few CUA studies have been carried out in the mental health field, there is thus an opportunity to undertake studies providing the evidence needed by clinicians and decision-makers for transparent decisions regarding treatment options and the future funding of mental health care

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ostenfeld E. Aristotle on the good life and quality of life. In: Nordenfelt L, editor. Concepts and Measurement of Quality of Life in Health Care. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1994. p. 19–34.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Long PH. On the quantity and quality of life. Med. Times 1960;88:613–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Elkinton JR. Medicine and the quality of life. Ann. Intern. Med. 1966;64(3):711–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Imhof A. The implications of increased life expectancy for family and social life. In: Wear A, editor. Medicine in Society: Historical Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Nordenfelt L, editor. Concepts and Measurement of Quality of Life in Health Care. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Walker S, Rosser R. Quality of life assessment: key issues in the 1990s. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Williams B. Patient satisfaction: a valid concept? Soc. Sci. Med. 1994;38(4):509–516.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sitzia J, Wood N. Patient satisfaction: a review of issues and concepts. Soc. Sci. Med. 1997;45(12):1829–1843.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bowling A. Measuring Health: A Review of Quality of Life Measurement Scales. Milton Keynes: Open University; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Drummond M, O’Brien B, Stoddart G, et al. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Productivity Commission. Economic Implications of an Ageing Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Productivity Commission. Impacts of Medical Technology in Australia. Melbourne: Productivity Commission; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mathers C, Vos T, Stevenson C. The Burden of Disease and Injury in Australia. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Suchman EA. Evaluative Research: Principles and Practice in Public Service & Social Action Programs. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Foucault M. Madness and civilization; a history of insanity in the Age of Reason. New York: Vintage Books; 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  16. WHOQoL Group. Study protocol for the World Health Organization project to develop a quality of life assessment instrument (WHOQOL). Qual. Life Res. 1993;2:153–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Atkinson M, Zibin S, Chuang H. Characterizing quality of life among patients with chronic mental illness: a critical examination of the self-report methodology. Am. J. Psychiatry 1997;154:99–105.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Awad G, Voruganti P. Cost-utility analysis in schizophrenia. J. Clin. Psychiatry 1999;60(Suppl 3): 22–28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Voruganti L, Heslegrave R, Awad A, et al. Quality of life measurement in schizophrenia: reconciling the quest for subjectivity with the question of reliability. Psychol. Med. 1998;28:165–172.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Herrman H, Hawthorne G, Thomas R. Quality of life assessment in people living with psychosis. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2002;37(11):510–518.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sackett D, Torrance G. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J. Chronic Dis. 1978;31:697–704.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Torrance G, Boyle M, Horwood S. Application of multi-attribute theory to measure social preferences for health states. Oper. Res. 1982;30:1043–1069.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Patrick DL, Bush JW, Chen MM. Toward an operational definition of health. J. Health Soc. Behav. 1973;14(1):6–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Rosser R, Kind P. A scale of valuations of states of illness: is there a social consensus. Int. J. Epidemiol. 1978;7(4):347–58.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ubel PA, Richardson J, Menzel P. Societal value, the person trade-off, and the dilemma of whose values to measure for cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 2000;9(2):127–36.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Jepson C. Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Qual. Life Res. 2003;12:599–607.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Shortell R, Richardson W. Health Program Evaluation. St Louis: Mosby; 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ovretveit J. Evaluating Health Interventions. Buckingham: Open University Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Singh B, Hawthorne G, Vos T. The role of economic evaluation in mental health care. Aust. N. Z. J. Psychiatry 2001;35:104–117.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Torrance G. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J. Health Econ. 1986;5:1–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day N, et al. Life and Death: Theoretical and Practical Issues in Utility Measurement. Melbourne: Centre for Health Program Evaluation; 2000. Working Paper 102.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Richardson J, Hawthorne G. Negative Utilities and the Evaluation of Complex Health States: Issues Arising from the Scaling of a Multiattribute Utility Instrument. Melbourne: Centre for Health Program Evaluation; 2000. Working Paper 113.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Richardson J. Cost utility analysis: what should be measured? Soc. Sci. Med. 1994;39(1):7–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, et al. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol. Assess. 1999;3(9):1–165.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Bennett K, Torrance G. Measuring health state preferences and utilities: rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble techniques. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1996. p. 253–265.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Robinson A, Dolan P, Williams A. Valuing health states using VAS and TTO: what lies behind the numbers? Soc. Sci. Med. 1997;45(8):1289–1297.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Gudex C, Kind P, van Dalen H, et al. Comparing Scaling Methods for Health State Valuations - Rosser Revisited. Discussion Paper. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 1993. Report No.: 107.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Rosser R. A health index and output measure. In: Walker S, Rosser R, editors. Quality of Life Assessment: Key Issues in the 1990s. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  39. von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W. Decision Analysis and Behavioural Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Osborne R. The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of health related quality of life. Qual. Life Res. 1999;8:209–224.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day N. A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann. Med. 2001;33(5):358–370.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day N, et al. Construction and Utility Scaling of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) Instrument. Melbourne: Centre for Health Program Evaluation; 2000. Working Paper 101.

    Google Scholar 

  43. EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kind P. The EuroQoL instrument: an index of health-related quality of life. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd ed. Philadelpha: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1996. p. 191–201.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance G. Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 (HUI2/3) 15-item questionnaire for self-administered, self-assessed usual health status. Hamilton: Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Feeny D, Torrance G, Furlong W. Health utilities index. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd ed. Philadelpha: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. Multi-attribute preference functions. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics 1995;7(6):503–20.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Sintonen H, Pekurinen M. A fifteen-dimensional measure of health-related quality of life (15D) and its applications. In: Walker S, Rosser R, editors. Quality of Life Assessment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Sintonen H. The 15D measure of health-related quality of life: feasibility, reliability and validity of its valuation system. Melbourne: National Centre for Health Program Evaluation; 1995. Working Paper 42.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Sintonen H. The 15D measure of health-related quality of life: reliability, validity and sensitivity of its health state descriptive system. Melbourne: National Centre for Health Program Evaluation; 1994. Working Paper 41.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Kaplan R, Anderson J, Ganiats T. The Quality of Well-Being Scale: rationale for a single quality of life index. In: Walker S, Rosser R, editors. Quality of Life Assessment: Key Issues in the 1990s. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Kaplan RM, Alcaraz JE, Anderson JP, et al. Quality-adjusted life years lost to arthritis: effects of gender, race,and social class. Arthritis Care Res. 1996;9(6):473–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J. Health Econ. 2002;21:271–292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, et al. Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):1115–1128.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Hawthorne G, Richardson J. An Australian MAU/QALY Instrument: Rationale and Preliminary Results. In: Sansoni J, editor. Proceedings Health Outcomes and Quality of Life Measurement Conference; 1995; Canberra: The Australian Health Outcomes Collaboration. The University of Wollongong; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Nord E. A Review of Synthetic Health Indicators. Oslo: National Institute of Public Health for the OECD Directorate for Education, Employment, Labour and Social Affairs; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann. Med. 2001;33:337–343.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Kaplan RM, Anderson JP. A general health policy model: update and applications. Health Serv. Res. 1988;23(2):203–35.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, et al. The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med. Care 1981;19(8):787–805.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Hunt S, McKenna S, McEwen J, et al. The Nottingham Health Profile: subjective health status and medical consultations. Soc. Sci. Med. 1981;15A:221–229.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med. Care 1997;35(11):1095–1108.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med. Care 2005;43(3):203–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Havranek EP, Steiner JF. Valuation of health states in the US versus the UK: two measures divided by a common language? Med. Care 2005;43(3):201–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Johnson JA, Luo N, Shaw JW, et al. Valuations of EQ-5D health states: are the United States and United Kingdom different? Med. Care 2005;43(3):221–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Fryback DG. A US valuation of the EQ-5D. Med. Care 2005;43(3):199–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. MVHGroup. The Measurement and Valuation of Health: Final Modelling of Valuation Tariffs. York: Centre for Health Economics; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J. Health Econ. 1996;15:209–231.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Furlong WJ, Feeny DH, Torrance GW, et al. The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann. Med. 2001;33:375–384.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G, et al. Multiplicative Multi-attribute Utility Function for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) System: A Technical Report. Working Paper. Hamilton: McMaster University, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis; 1998. Report No.: 98–11.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Sintonen H. The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Ann. Med. 2001;33:328–336.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. McDowell I, Newell C, editors. Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Cadet B. History of the construction of a health indicator integrating social preference: the Quality of Well-Being Scale. In: 7th Meeting, International Network on Health Expectancy (REVES); 1994 23–25 February; Canberra; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Kaplan R, Bush J, Berry C. Health status: types of validity and the Index of Well-being. Health Serv. Res. 1976;11(4):478–507.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Anderson J, Kaplan R, Berry C, et al. Interday reliability of function assessment for a health status measure: The Quality of Well-Being scale. Med. Care 1989;27(11):1076–1084.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Kaplan R, Ganiats T, Sieber W, et al. The Quality of Well-being Scale. Medical Outcomes Trust Bulletin 1996:2–3.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Bombardier C, Raboud J. A comparison of health-related quality-of-life measures for rheumatoid arthritis research. The Auranofin Cooperating Group. Control. Clin. Trials 1991;12(4 Suppl): 243S-256S.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Coons S, Kaplan R. Quality of life assessment: understanding its use as an outcome measure. Hosp. Formul. 1993;28:486–498.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Kind P, Gudex C. Measuring health status in the community: a comparison of methods. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 1994;48:86–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Martin A, Glasziou P, Simes R. A Utility-Based Quality of Life Questionnaire for Cardiovascular Patients: Reliability and Validity of the UBQ-H(eart) Items. Sydney: NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Hawthorne G, Richardson J. Measuring the value of program outcomes: a review of utility measures. Exp. Rev. Pharm. Outcomes Res. 2001;1(2):215–228.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Barton GR, Bankart J, Davis AC, et al. Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision: results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2004;3(2):103–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Barton GR, Bankart J, Davis AC. A comparison of the quality of life of hearing-impaired people as estimated by three different utility measures. Int. J. Audiol. 2005;44(3):157–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME. Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med. Care 2003;41(7):791–801.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day N. A comparison of five multi-attribute utility instruments.Aust. Stud. Health Serv Admin 2001;89: 151–179.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Kopec JA, Willison KD. A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health- related quality of life. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2003;56(4):317–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec JA, et al. A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc. Sci. Med. 2005;60(7):1571–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Feeny DH. Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Qual. Life Res. 2005;14(1):207–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Robinson A, Loomes G, Jones-Lee M. Visual analog scales, standard gambles and relative risk aversion. Med. Decis. Making 2001;21(1):17–27.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med. Decis. Making 2001;21(4):329–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al. Social tariff for EUROQoL: results from a UK general population survey. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 1995. Discussion Paper 138.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. An experimental test of a theoretical foundation for rating-scale valuations. Med. Decis. Making 1997;17(2):208–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Nord E. Unjustified use of the Quality of Well-Being Scale in priority setting in Oregon. Health Policy 1993;24(1):45–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Hollingworth W, Mackenzie R, Todd CJ, et al. Measuring changes in quality of life following magnetic resonance imaging of the knee: SF-36, EuroQol or Rosser index? Qual. Life Res. 1995;4(4):325–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Nord E, Richardson J, Macarounas-Kirchmann K. Social 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. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 1993;9(4):463–78.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Mulkay M, Ashmore M, Pinch T. Measuring the quality of life: a sociological intervention concerning the application of economics to health care. Sociology 1987;21:541–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Elvik R. The validity of using health state indexes in measuring the consequences of traffic injury for public health. Soc. Sci. Med. 1995;40(10):1385–98.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. DeptHealth. Research Group on the measurement and valuation of health. In: Methodology Workshop, EUROQoL Conference; 1995; London: Economics & Operational Research Division, Department of Health; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Richardson C, Zumbo B. A statistical examination of the Health Utility Index-Mark III as a summary measure of health status for a general population survey. Soc. Ind. Res. 2000;51(2):171–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Cattell R. Factor Analysis: an Introduction and Manual for the Psychologist and Social Scientist. New York: Harper & Row; 1952.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Cook K, Ashton C, Byrne M, et al. A psychometric analysis of the measurement level of the rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble. Soc. Sci. Med. 2001;53:1275–1285.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day N. A comparison of five %multi-attribute utility instruments. Aust. Stud. Health Serv. Admin. 2001;89:151–179.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, et al. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004;13(9):873–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Kaplan R, Bush J, Berry C. The reliability, stability and generalizability of a health status index. In: Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section; 1978: American Statistical Association; 1978. p. 704–709.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Kaplan RM. Quality of life assessment for cost/utility studies in cancer. Cancer Treat. Rev. 1993;19 Suppl A:85–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Kaplan RM, Anderson JP, Patterson TL, et al. Validity of the Quality of Well-Being Scale for persons with human immunodeficiency virus infection. HNRC Group. HIV Neurobehavioral Research Center. Psychosom. Med. 1995;57(2):138–47.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Bradlyn AS, Harris CV, Warner JE, et al. An investigation of the validity of the quality of Well-Being Scale with pediatric oncology patients. Health Psychol. 1993;12(3):246–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. O’Connor R. Issues in the Measurement of Health-Related Quality of Life. Melbourne: National Centre for Health Program Evaluation; 1993. Working Paper 30.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Visser M, Fletcher A, Parr G, et al. A comparison of three quality of life instruments in subjects with angina pectoris: the Sickness Impact Profile, the Nottingham Health Profile, and the Quality of Well Being Scale. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1994;47(2):157–163.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Brazier J, Jones N, Kind P. Testing the validity of the EuroQoL and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Qual. Life Res. 1993;2:169–180.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. Andersen L, Kristiansen I, Falch J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of Alendronate for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in Norwegian women. Working Paper. Oslo: Folkehelsa; Statens Institutt for Folkehelsa; 1995. Report No.: 11/1995.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Wlodarczyk JH, Brodaty H, Hawthorne G. The relationship between quality of life, Mini-Mental State Examination, and the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living in patients with Alzheimer’s Disease. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2004;39(1):25–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Hogan A, Hawthorne G, Kethel L, et al. Health-related quality-of-life outcomes from adult cochlear implantation: a cross-sectional study. Cochlear Imp. Int. 2001;2(2):115–128.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. Hawthorne G, Cheok F, Goldney R, et al. The excess cost of depression in South Australia: a comparative study of two methods of calculating burden. Aust. N. Z. J. Psychiatry 2003;37(3):362–373.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Goldney RD, Fisher LJ, Wilson DH, et al. Suicidal ideation and health-related quality of life in the community. Med. J. Aust. 2001;175(10):546–549.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. Sturm JW, Osborne RH, Dewey HM, et al. Brief comprehensive quality of life assessment after stroke: the Assessment of Quality of Life instrument in the North East Melbourne Stroke Incidence study (NEMESIS). Stroke 2002;33(12):2888–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Stavem K. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of two multiattribute utility measures in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Qual. Life Res. 1999;8(1–2):45–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  117. Dorman P, Slattery J, Farrell B, et al. Qualitative comparison of the reliability of health status assessments with the EuroQol and SF-36 questionnaires after stroke. United Kingdom Collaborators in the International Stroke Trial. Stroke 1998;29(1):63–68.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. van Agt HM, Essink-Bot ML, Krabbe PF, et al. Test-retest reliability of health state valuations collected with the EuroQol questionnaire. Soc. Sci. Med. 1994;39(11):1537–1544.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Boyle MH, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. Reliability of the Health Utilities Index – Mark III used in the 1991 cycle 6 Canadian General Social Survey Health Questionnaire. Qual. Life Res. 1995;4:249–257.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  120. Hawthorne G. The effect of different methods of collecting data: mail, telephone and filter data collection issues in utility measurement. Qual. Life Res. 2003;12:1081–1088.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Hawthorne G, Osborne R, McNeil H, et al. The Australian Multi-attribute Utility (AMAU): Construction and Initial Validation. Melbourne: Centre for Health Program Evaluation; 1996. Working Paper 56.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Osborne R, et al. The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) Instrument: Construction, Initial Validation and Utility Scaling. Melbourne: Centre for Health Program Evaluation; 1997. Working Paper 76.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Araya R, Flynn T, Rojas G, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a primary care treatment program for depression in low-income women in Santiago, Chile. Am. J. Psychiatry 2006;163(8):1379–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Adams M, Kutcher S, Antoniw E, et al. Diagnostic utility of endocrine and neuroimaging screening tests in first-onset adolescent psychosis. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 1996;35(1):67–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  125. Pinkerton SD, Johnson-Masotti AP, Otto-Salaj LL, et al. Cost-effectiveness of an HIV prevention intervention for mentally ill adults. Ment Health Serv Res 2001;3(1):45–55.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  126. Manning W. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine recommendations: identifying costs. J. Clin. Psychiatry 1999;60(Suppl 3):54–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Noyes K, Dick AW, Holloway RG. Pramipexole v. levodopa as initial treatment for Parkinson’s disease: a randomized clinical-economic trial. Med. Decis. Making 2004;24(5):472–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Fernandez JL, Montgomery S, Francois C. Evaluation of the cost effectiveness of escitalopram versus venlafaxine XR in major depressive disorder. Pharmacoeconomics 2005;23(2):155–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Jones PB, Barnes TR, Davies L, et al. Randomized controlled trial of the effect on Quality of Life of second- vs first-generation antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia: Cost Utility of the Latest Antipsychotic Drugs in Schizophrenia Study (CUtLASS 1). Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 2006;63(10):1079–87.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  130. Holland R, Smith R, Harvey I, et al. Assessing quality of life in the elderly: a direct comparison of the EQ-5D and AQoL. Health Econ. 2004;13(8):793–805.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Hawthorne G. Measuring incontinence in Australia. Melbourne: Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne for the Department of Health and Ageing, Australian Government, Canberra. May 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Kroenke K, et al. Utility of a new procedure for diagnosing mental disorders in primary care. The PRIME-MD 1000 study. JAMA 1994;272(22):1749–56.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  133. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Linzer M, et al. Health-related quality of life in primary care patients with mental disorders. Results from the PRIME-MD 1000 Study. JAMA 1995;274(19):1511–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  134. Fayers P, Machin D. Quality of Life: Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation. Chichester: Wiley; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  135. Wood J, Taylor S, Lichtman R. Social comparison in adjustment to breast cancer. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1985;49:1169–1183.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  136. Diener E, Suh E, Lucas R, et al. Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychol. Bull. 1999;125:276–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Kring A, Kerr S, Smith D, et al. Flat affect in schizophrenia does not reflect diminished subjective experience of emotion. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 1993;102:507–517.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  138. Jenkins C. Assessment of outcomes of health intervention. Soc. Sci. Med. 1992;35:367–375.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  139. Awad G, Hogan T, Voruganti L, et al. Patients’ subjective experiences on antipsychotic medications: implications for outcome and quality of life. Int. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 1995;10S:123–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Coucill W, Bryan S, Bentham P, et al. EQ-5D in patients with dementia: an investigation of interrater agreement. Med. Care 2001;39(8):760–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  141. Becchi A, Rucci P, Placentino A, et al. Quality of life in patients with schizophrenia—comparison of self-report and proxy assessments. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2004;39(5):397–401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. Ankri J, Beaufils B, Novella JL, et al. Use of the EQ-5D among patients suffering from dementia. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2003;56(11):1055–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  143. Bullinger M, Azouvi P, Brooks N, et al. Quality of life in patients with traumatic brain injury-basic issues, assessment and recommendations. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2002;20(3–4):111–24.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  144. Tamim H, McCusker J, Dendukuri N. Proxy reporting of quality of life using the EQ-5D. Med. Care 2002;40(12):1186–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. Naglie G, Tomlinson G, Tansey C, et al. Utility-based Quality of Life measures in Alzheimer’s disease. Qual. Life Res. 2006;15(4):631–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. Scocco P, Fantoni G, Caon F. Role of depressive and cognitive status in self-reported evaluation of quality of life in older people: comparing proxy and physician perspectives. Age Ageing 2005;35(2):166–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. Sainfort F, Becker M, Diamond R. Judgements of quality of life of individuals with severe mental disorders: patient self-report versus provider perspectives. Am. J. Psychiatry 1996;153:497–502.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  148. Hawthorne G, Osborne R. Population norms and meaningful differences for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) measure. Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 2005;29(2):136–142.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. Patterson TL, Shaw W, Semple SJ, et al. Health-related quality of life in older patients with schizophrenia and other psychoses: relationships among psychosocial and psychiatric factors. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 1997;12(4):452–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  150. Depp CA, Davis CE, Mittal D, et al. Health-related quality of life and functioning of middle-aged and elderly adults with bipolar disorder. J. Clin. Psychiatry 2006;67(2):215–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. Lonnqvist J, Sintonen H, Syvalahti E, et al. Antidepressant efficacy and quality of life in depression: a double-blind study with moclobemide and fluoxetine. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 1994;89(6):363–369.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  152. Sapin C, Fantino B, Nowicki ML, et al. Usefulness of EQ-5D in assessing health status in primary care patients with major depressive disorder. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004;2:20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  153. Pyne JM, Patterson TL, Kaplan RM, et al. Assessment of the quality of life of patients with major depression. Psychiatr. Serv. 1997;48(2):224–30.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  154. Kasckow JW, Twamley E, Mulchahey JJ, et al. Health-related quality of well-being in chronically hospitalized patients with schizophrenia: comparison with matched outpatients. Psychiatry Res. 2001;103(1):69–78.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  155. Saarni SI, Harkanen T, Sintonen H, et al. The Impact of 29 Chronic Conditions on Healthrelated Quality of Life: A General Population Survey in Finland Using 15D and EQ-5D. Qual. Life Res. 2006; 15(9):1403–1414. 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  156. Goldney RD, Fisher LJ. Double depression in an Australian population. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2004;39(11):921–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  157. Manuel DG, Schultz SE, Kopec JA. Measuring the health burden of chronic disease and injury using health adjusted life expectancy and the Health Utilities Index. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2002;56(11):843–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  158. Goldney R, Fisher LJ, Dal Grande E, et al. Have education and publicity about depression made a difference? A comparison of prevalence, service use and excess costs in South Australia: 1998 and 2004. Aust. N. Z. J. Psychiatry 2007:41(1);38–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. Rasanen P, Roine E, Sintonen H, et al. Use of quality-adjusted life years for the estimation of effectiveness of health care: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 2006;22(2):235–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  160. PBAC. Background Document on the use of economic analysis as a basis for inclusion of pharmaceutical products on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  161. PBAC. Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on Preparation of Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. 2nd draft. Canberra: Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, Commonwealth of Australia; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  162. Thomas S, Nay R, Moore K, et al. Continence Outcomes Measurement Suite Project (Final Report). Canberra: Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing; 2006 April.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Australia

    Graeme Hawthorne

Authors
  1. Graeme Hawthorne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa

    Michael S. Ritsner

  2. Director, Acute Department, Sha’ar Menashe, Mental Health Center, Israel

    Michael S. Ritsner

  3. Associate Editor, Quality of Life Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Michael S. Ritsner

  4. Professor Emeritus, Department of Psychiatry, Institute of Medical Science University of Toronto Chief of Psychiatry, Humber River Regional Hospital, Toronto

    A. George Awad

  5. Ontario President, The International Society of CNS, Clinical Trials and Methodology, Canada

    A. George Awad

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 springer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hawthorne, G. (2007). Measuring the value of health-related quality of life. In: Ritsner, M.S., Awad, A.G. (eds) Quality of Life Impairment in Schizophrenia, Mood and Anxiety Disorders. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5779-3_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5779-3_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-5777-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-5779-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation