Measuring concerns for severity: Re-examination of a health scale with purported equal interval properties
Severity of illness is an important official criterion for priority setting in health care in a number of jurisdictions. An 8-point scale of severity and functional status has been used in a number of studies in Norway in order to estimate the strength of concerns for severity in population samples. The scale has attracted international attention and may be of interest to researchers in other countries. For confidence in interpretations of results, the scale should have equal interval properties with respect to individual utility. Close examination suggest that some deviations from equal intervals occur. These deviations do not impact significantly on earlier findings and do not prevent the scale from being a potentially useful tool in future studies of the strength of societal concerns for fairness in health care. However, further research with larger and more representative samples is encouraged.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- David Parkin & Nancy Devlin, 2006.
"Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost-utility analysis?,"
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 653-664.
- Parkin, D. & Devlin, N., 2004. "Is there a case for using Visual Analogue Scale valuations in Cost-Utility Analysis?," Working Papers 04/03, Department of Economics, City University London.
- 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.
- Paul Dolan & Rebecca Shaw & Aki Tsuchiya & Alan Williams, 2005. "QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 197-208.
- Shah, Koonal K., 2009. "Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: A review of the literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 77-84, December.
- Erik Nord & Anja Undrum Enge & Veronica Gundersen, 2010. "QALYs: is the value of treatment proportional to the size of the health gain?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(5), pages 596-607.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:105:y:2012:i:2:p:312-316. 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: (Zhang, Lei)or () The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask to update the entry or send us the correct address
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 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.