IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ohe/grafun/002518.html

Understanding the preferences of people with acute leukemia for different health outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • David Mott
  • Hannah Hussain
  • Sulayman Chowdhury
  • Samantha Nier
  • Chris Skedgel

Abstract

When we want to understand or measure someone’s “health-related quality-of-life”, we typically ask them to describe the problems they have with different aspects of their health. In this study, we wanted to understand which aspects, or “dimensions”, of health-related quality-of-life are most important to the general public and to persons with acute leukemia.

Suggested Citation

  • David Mott & Hannah Hussain & Sulayman Chowdhury & Samantha Nier & Chris Skedgel, 2025. "Understanding the preferences of people with acute leukemia for different health outcomes," Grant-Funded Research 002518, Office of Health Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ohe:grafun:002518
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ohe.org/publications/understanding-the-preferences-of-people-with-acute-leukemia-for-different-health-outcomes/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.ohe.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Understanding-preferences-of-people-with-acute-leukemia.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nancy J. Devlin & Feng Xie & Bernhard Slaap & Elly Stolk, 2025. "Measuring and Valuing Health Using EuroQol Instruments: New Developments 2025 and Beyond," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 23(6), pages 947-960, November.
    2. Julie Ratcliffe & Terry Flynn & Frances Terlich & Katherine Stevens & John Brazier & Michael Sawyer, 2012. "Developing Adolescent-Specific Health State Values for Economic Evaluation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 713-727, August.
    3. Flynn, Terry N. & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2007. "Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 171-189, January.
    4. Alexander James Thompson & Alex James Turner, 2020. "A Comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(6), pages 575-591, June.
    5. Ogorevc, Marko & Murovec, Nika & Fernandez, Natacha Bolanos & Rupel, Valentina Prevolnik, 2019. "Questioning the differences between general public vs. patient based preferences towards EQ-5D-5L defined hypothetical health states," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 166-172.
    6. Versteegh, M.M. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2016. "Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 66-74.
    7. Ines Buchholz & Mathieu F. Janssen & Thomas Kohlmann & You-Shan Feng, 2018. "A Systematic Review of Studies Comparing the Measurement Properties of the Three-Level and Five-Level Versions of the EQ-5D," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 645-661, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yu, Alice & Viney, Rosalie & Goodall, Stephen & Street, Deborah J., 2025. "Can an ‘informed’ general population sample be comparable to a patient sample? A case study of preferences for chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    2. Joanna Coast, 2019. "Assessing capability in economic evaluation: a life course approach?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 779-784, August.
    3. Osman, Ahmed M.Y. & Wu, Jing & He, Xiaoning & Chen, Gang, 2021. "Eliciting SF-6Dv2 health state utilities using an anchored best-worst scaling technique," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    4. Mina Bahrampour & Joshua Byrnes & Richard Norman & Paul A. Scuffham & Martin Downes, 2020. "Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 983-992, September.
    5. Elliott, Jack & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2022. "Do they just know more, or do they also have different preferences? An exploratory analysis of the effects of self-reporting serious health problems on health state valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    6. Touré, Moustapha & Poder, Thomas G., 2024. "Differences in health utilities between cancer patients and the general population: The case of Quebec using the SF-6Dv2," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 351(C).
    7. Jennifer A Whitty & Ruth Walker & Xanthe Golenko & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "A Think Aloud Study Comparing the Validity and Acceptability of Discrete Choice and Best Worst Scaling Methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-9, April.
    8. Nicolas Krucien & Verity Watson & Mandy Ryan, 2017. "Is Best–Worst Scaling Suitable for Health State Valuation? A Comparison with Discrete Choice Experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1-16, December.
    9. Aizaki, Hideo & Fogarty, James, 2019. "An R package and tutorial for case 2 best–worst scaling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Hosein Ameri & Thomas G. Poder, 2025. "Comparison of four approaches in eliciting health state utilities with SF-6Dv2," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(4), pages 589-604, June.
    11. Dumbrell, Nikki P. & Kragt, Marit E. & Gibson, Fiona L., 2016. "What carbon farming activities are farmers likely to adopt? A best–worst scaling survey," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 29-37.
    12. Joanna M Charles & Deirdre M Harrington & Melanie J Davies & Charlotte L Edwardson & Trish Gorely & Danielle H Bodicoat & Kamlesh Khunti & Lauren B Sherar & Thomas Yates & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, 2019. "Micro-costing and a cost-consequence analysis of the ‘Girls Active’ programme: A cluster randomised controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, August.
    13. van Hulsen, Merel A.J. & Rohde, Kirsten I.M. & van Exel, Job, 2023. "Preferences for investment in and allocation of additional healthcare capacity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 320(C).
    14. Valentina Prevolnik Rupel & Marko Ogorevc, 2023. "EQ-5D-5L Value Set for Slovenia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(11), pages 1515-1524, November.
    15. V. Srinivasan & G. Shainesh & Anand K. Sharma, 2015. "An approach to prioritize customer-based, cost-effective service enhancements," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(14), pages 747-762, October.
    16. Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    17. Christian Wankmüller & Maximilian Kunovjanek & Robert Gennaro Sposato & Gerald Reiner, 2020. "Selecting E-Mobility Transport Solutions for Mountain Rescue Operations," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-19, December.
    18. David J. Mott & Laura Ternent & Luke Vale, 2023. "Do preferences differ based on respondent experience of a health issue and its treatment? A case study using a public health intervention," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(3), pages 413-423, April.
    19. Stephanie Knox & Rosalie Viney & Deborah Street & Marion Haas & Denzil Fiebig & Edith Weisberg & Deborah Bateson, 2012. "What’s Good and Bad About Contraceptive Products?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(12), pages 1187-1202, December.
    20. Ava Hoogenboom & Vivian Reckers-Droog & Stefan Lipman & Werner Brouwer, 2026. "Nothing about us, without us? A reflection on and call for involving children in the process of valuing child health," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 27(2), pages 355-362, March.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health

    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:ohe:grafun:002518. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Publications Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Publications Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ohecouk.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.