Criteria for item selection for a preference-based measure for use in economic evaluation

被引:21
作者
Peasgood, Tessa [1 ,2 ]
Mukuria, Clara [1 ]
Carlton, Jill [1 ]
Connell, Janice [1 ]
Brazier, John [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sheffield, Sch Hlth & Related Res, Sheffield, S Yorkshire, England
[2] Univ Melbourne, Melbourne Sch Populat & Global Hlth, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
PROMs; Item selection; Question selection; Preference-based measures; Quality of life; Utility; PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES; HEALTH;
D O I
10.1007/s11136-020-02718-9
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Preference-based measures allow patients to report their level of health, and the responses are then scored using preference weights from a representative general population sample for use in cost utility analysis. The development process of new preference-based measures should ensure that valid items are selected to reflect the constructs of interest included in the measure and that are suitable for use in preference-elicitation exercises. Existing criteria on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) development were reviewed, and additional considerations were taken into account in order to generate criteria to support development of new preference-based measures. Criteria covering 22 different aspects related to item selection for preference-based measures are presented. These include criteria related to how items are phrased to ensure accurate completion, the coverage of items in terms of range of domains as well as focus on current outcomes and whether items are suitable for valuation. The criteria are aimed at supporting the development of new preference-based measures with discussion to ensure that even where there is conflict between criteria, issues have been considered at the item selection stage. This would minimize problems at valuation stage by harmonizing established criteria and expanding lists to reflect the unique characteristics of preference-based measures.
引用
收藏
页码:1425 / 1432
页数:8
相关论文
共 20 条
[1]   Best Practice Recommendations for Designing and Implementing Experimental Vignette Methodology Studies [J].
Aguinis, Herman ;
Bradley, Kyle J. .
ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH METHODS, 2014, 17 (04) :351-371
[2]  
Bradburn N., 2004, ASKING QUESTIONS DEF
[3]  
Brazier AJ, 2017, MSPHERE, V2, DOI [10.1128/mSphere.00348-16, 10.1128/msphere.00348-16]
[4]   The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36 [J].
Brazier, J ;
Roberts, J ;
Deverill, M .
JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2002, 21 (02) :271-292
[5]   Developing and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition-specific measures (and other patient-based measures of outcome) Introduction [J].
Brazier, J. E. ;
Rowen, D. ;
Mavranezouli, I. ;
Tsuchiya, A. ;
Young, T. ;
Yang, Y. ;
Barkham, M. ;
Ibbotson, R. .
HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, 2012, 16 (32) :1-+
[6]  
Fayers P.M., 2015, Quality of life: the assessment, analysis and reporting of patient-reported outcomes, DOI [10.1002/9781118758991, DOI 10.1002/9781118758991]
[7]   Differential item functioning results may change depending on how an item is scored: An illustration with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale [J].
Gelin, MN ;
Zumbo, BD .
EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 2003, 63 (01) :65-74
[8]   Recovering Quality of Life (ReQoL): a new generic self-reported outcome measure for use with people experiencing mental health difficulties [J].
Keetharuth, Anju Devianee ;
Brazier, John ;
Connell, Janice ;
Bjorner, Jakob Bue ;
Carlton, Jill ;
Buck, Elizabeth Taylor ;
Ricketts, Thomas ;
McKendrick, Kirsty ;
Browne, John ;
Croudace, Tim ;
Barkham, Michael .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 2018, 212 (01) :42-49
[9]  
NICE, 2013, Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013
[10]   Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labeling claims: FDA perspective [J].
Patrick, Donald L. ;
Burke, Laurie B. ;
Powers, John H. ;
Scott, Jane A. ;
Rock, Edwin P. ;
Dawisha, Sahar ;
O'Neill, Robert ;
Kennedy, Dianne L. .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2007, 10 :S125-S137