IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v34y1992i5p559-569.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Methods for quality adjustment of life years

Author

Listed:
  • Nord, Erik

Abstract

Several valuation techniques are in use for quality adjusting life years in cost utility analysis. The paper gives an overview of the variability in results. A close inspection of a number of instruments with respect to their theme, instructions, decision framing and the phrasing of questions make many of the observed differences in results understandable. When judging the validity of the different techniques, three points should be kept in mind. One is that statements about validity should be made with respect to concrete versions rather than broad categories like 'the rating scale', 'time trade-off' etc. Another point is that a valuation technique that is valid in clinical decision analysis may not be valid in health program evaluation, and vice versa. The third point is that quality weights for life years are empirically more meaningful, in the sense that they are more amenable to empirical testing, if they are interpreted simply as preference weights rather than measures of amounts of well life in the utilitarian tradition. Time trade-off with a moderate time horizon is recommended in clinical decision analysis, while a combination of time trade-off and a variant of person trade-off is recommended in health program evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • Nord, Erik, 1992. "Methods for quality adjustment of life years," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 559-569, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:34:y:1992:i:5:p:559-569
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(92)90211-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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

    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:eee:socmed:v:34:y:1992:i:5:p:559-569. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.