• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Health Services Research & Policy >Roughly right or precisely wrong? Systematic review of quality-of-life weights elicited with the time trade-off method
【24h】

Roughly right or precisely wrong? Systematic review of quality-of-life weights elicited with the time trade-off method

机译：大致正确还是完全错误？时间权衡方法引发的生活质量权重的系统评价

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Objective: Cost–utility analysis is gaining importance as a tool for setting priorities in health care. The approachnrequires quality-of-life weights on a scale from 0.00 (corresponding to death) to 1.00 (corresponding to perfectnhealth). Differentmethods and perspectives of the evaluators tend to give different results. Time trade-off (TTO) isnthe most commonly used method to elicit quality-of-life weights for quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Hownreliable are the results of this method, when limited to one speci. c perspective, as input for cost–utility analysis?nMethod: Systematic literature review of empirical studies in which the TTO is elicited by the respondent on theirnown behalf.nResults: In 56 papers, quality-of-life weights for 102 diagnostic groups were given. Ranking of the diagnosticngroups according to their quality-of-life weights had no apparent relation to severity. One speci. c diagnostic groupnwas assigned quality-of-life weights ranging from 0.39 to 0.84. Altogether, 57% of respondents did not trade any lifetimenat all in exchange for health improvements. The distributions studied were skewed towards 1.00 and werenbimodal without a central tendency. The correlation between the TTO and related methods was generally weak.nPossible explanations for the poor empirical properties of the TTO are inappropriate use of the method, lack ofnrepresentative samples, or that the TTO does not measure what it claims to measure.nConclusion: In the light of these . ndings, the TTO elicited from the patient perspective, as currently practised,nshould not be used as an input for QALYs or for comparisons of diagnostic groups.
机译：目标：成本-效用分析作为确定医疗保健重点的工具正变得越来越重要。该方法要求生活质量权重的范围为0.00（相当于死亡）至1.00（相当于Perfectnhealth）。评估者的不同方法和观点往往会得出不同的结果。时间权衡（TTO）是获得质量调整生命年（QALY）的生活质量权重的最常用方法。当限于一个特定样本时，此方法的结果多么可靠。方法：对经验研究进行系统的文献综述，其中被访者代表自己发起TTO。n结果：在56篇论文中，给出了102个诊断组的生活质量权重。根据生活质量权重对诊断组的排名与严重程度没有明显关系。一个规格。为诊断组分配了生活质量权重，范围为0.39至0.84。总共有57％的受访者一辈子都没有交易以换取健康改善。所研究的分布偏向1.00，呈双峰分布，没有集中趋势。 TTO与相关方法之间的相关性通常较弱。n对TTO的经验性质较差的可能解释是该方法使用不当，缺乏代表性样本或TTO无法衡量其声称要衡量的内容。鉴于这些。结果，从目前的角度出发，从患者角度得出的TTO不应用作QALYs或诊断组比较的输入。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号