IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ausecr/v37y2004i1p62-88.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measurement of the Quality of Life for Economic Evaluation and the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) Mark 2 Instrument

Author

Listed:
  • Jeff Richardson
  • Neil Atherton Day
  • Stuart Peacock
  • Angelo Iezzi

Abstract

Including the quality of life in the economic assessment of health and medical services is well established in the literature and a number of multi-attribute utility (MAU) instruments are available which purport to measure health state utilities. One of these, the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument was developed in Australia and uses Australian importance weights. The present article discusses some of the methodological problems encountered by existing instruments. It outlines the construction of the AQoL Mark 2 and the methodological innovations which have attempted to overcome some of these problems. Copyright 2004 The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeff Richardson & Neil Atherton Day & Stuart Peacock & Angelo Iezzi, 2004. "Measurement of the Quality of Life for Economic Evaluation and the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) Mark 2 Instrument," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 37(1), pages 62-88, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:ausecr:v:37:y:2004:i:1:p:62-88
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/servlet/useragent?func=synergy&synergyAction=showTOC&journalCode=aere&volume=37&issue=1&year=2004&part=null
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jeff Richardson & Stuart Peacock & Angelo Iezzi, 2009. "Do quality-adjusted life years take account of lost income? Evidence from an Australian survey," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(1), pages 103-109, February.
    2. Stevens, Katherine & McCabe, Christopher & Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer, 2007. "Multi-attribute utility function or statistical inference models: A comparison of health state valuation models using the HUI2 health state classification system," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 992-1002, September.
    3. Ayse Kuspinar & Nancy Mayo, 2014. "A Review of the Psychometric Properties of Generic Utility Measures in Multiple Sclerosis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(8), pages 759-773, August.
    4. Edward C. F. Wilson & Stuart J. Peacock & Danny Ruta, 2009. "Priority setting in practice: what is the best way to compare costs and benefits?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 467-478.
    5. Benjamin M. Craig & Sulabha Ramachandran, 2006. "Relative risk of a shuffled deck: a generalizable logical consistency criterion for sample selection in health state valuation studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 835-848.
    6. Peacock, Stuart J. & Richardson, Jeff R.J. & Carter, Rob & Edwards, Diana, 2007. "Priority setting in health care using multi-attribute utility theory and programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 897-910, February.
    7. Jeff Richardson & John McKie & Stuart Peacock & Angelo Iezzi, 2011. "Severity as an independent determinant of the social value of a health service," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(2), pages 163-174, April.
    8. Erik Nord & Jose Luis Pinto & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel & Peter Ubel, 1999. "Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 25-39.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ausecr:v:37:y:2004:i:1:p:62-88. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/mimelau.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.