Search

Your search keyword '"Brazier, John"' showing total 40 results
Start Over Author "Brazier, John" Journal pharmacoeconomics
40 results on '"Brazier, John"'

10. Australian Utility Weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument Derived from the Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30

Author

King, Madeleine T., Viney, Rosalie, Simon Pickard, A., Rowen, Donna, Aaronson, Neil K., Brazier, John E., Cella, David, Costa, Daniel S. J., Fayers, Peter M., Kemmler, Georg, McTaggart-Cowen, Helen, Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca, Peacock, Stuart, Street, Deborah J., Young, Tracey A., Norman, Richard, Aaronson, N., Brazier, J., Cella, D., Costa, D., Fayers, P., Grimison, P., Janda, M., Kemmler, G., King (Chair), M., McTaggart-Cowan, H., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Norman, R., Peacock, S., Pickard, S., Rowen, D., Velikova, G., Viney, R., Street, D., Young, T., and On behalf of the MAUCa Consortium

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

38. Australian Utility Weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument Derived from the Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30.

Author

King, Madeleine T., Viney, Rosalie, Simon Pickard, A., Rowen, Donna, Aaronson, Neil K., Brazier, John E., Cella, David, Costa, Daniel S. J., Fayers, Peter M., Kemmler, Georg, McTaggart-Cowen, Helen, Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca, Peacock, Stuart, Street, Deborah J., Young, Tracey A., Norman, Richard, On behalf of the MAUCa Consortium, and MAUCa Consortium

Subjects
QUALITY of life, QUESTIONNAIRES, LOGISTIC regression analysis, QUALITY-adjusted life years, LIFE expectancy, TUMORS & psychology, COMPARATIVE studies, COST effectiveness, DECISION making, HEALTH status indicators, RESEARCH methodology, MEDICAL cooperation, RESEARCH, RESEARCH funding, EVALUATION research
Abstract

Background: The EORTC QLU-C10D is a new multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the widely used cancer-specific quality-of-life (QOL) questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. The QLU-C10D contains ten dimensions (Physical, Role, Social and Emotional Functioning; Pain, Fatigue, Sleep, Appetite, Nausea, Bowel Problems), each with four levels. To be used in cost-utility analysis, country-specific valuation sets are required.Objective: The aim of this study was to provide Australian utility weights for the QLU-C10D.Methods: An Australian online panel was quota-sampled to ensure population representativeness by sex and age (≥ 18 years). Participants completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) consisting of 16 choice-pairs. Each pair comprised two QLU-C10D health states plus life expectancy. Data were analysed using conditional logistic regression, parameterised to fit the quality-adjusted life-year framework. Utility weights were calculated as the ratio of each QOL dimension-level coefficient to the coefficient on life expectancy.Results: A total of 1979 panel members opted in, 1904 (96%) completed at least one choice-pair, and 1846 (93%) completed all 16 choice-pairs. Dimension weights were generally monotonic: poorer levels within each dimension were generally associated with greater utility decrements. The dimensions that impacted most on choice were, in order, Physical Functioning, Pain, Role Functioning and Emotional Functioning. Oncology-relevant dimensions with moderate impact were Nausea and Bowel Problems. Fatigue, Trouble Sleeping and Appetite had relatively small impact. The value of the worst health state was -0.096, somewhat worse than death.Conclusions: This study provides the first country-specific value set for the QLU-C10D, which can facilitate cost-utility analyses when applied to data collected with the EORTC QLQ-C30, prospectively and retrospectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

39. Unmet Parenthood Goals, Health-Related Quality of Life and Apparent Irrationality: Understanding the Value of Treatments for Infertility.

Author

Skedgel, Chris, Cubi-Molla, Patricia, Mott, David, Gameiro, Sofia, Boivin, Jacky, Al-Janabi, Hareth, Brazier, John, Markert, Marie, Andersson, Fredrik L., and Jofre-Bonet, Mireia

Abstract

An increasing number of prospective parents are experiencing infertility along with associated negative impacts on mental health and life satisfaction that can extend across a network of individuals and family members. Assistive reproductive technologies (ART) can help prospective parents achieve their parenthood goals but, like any health technology, they must demonstrate acceptable 'value for money' to qualify for public funding. We argue that current approaches to understanding the value of ART, including quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains based on changes in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and, more often, cost per live birth, are too narrow to capture the full impact of unmet parenthood goals and ART. We see a fundamental disconnect between measures of HRQOL and broader measures of wellbeing associated with met and unmet parenthood goals. We also suggest that simple concepts such as 'patient' and 'carer' are of limited applicability in the context of ART, where 'spillovers' extend across a wide network of individuals, and the person receiving treatment is often not the infertile individual. Consideration of individual and societal wellbeing beyond HRQOL is necessary to understand the full range of negative impacts associated with unmet parenthood goals and the corresponding positive impacts of successful ART. We suggest moving towards a wellbeing perspective on value to achieve a fuller understanding of value and promote cross-sector allocative efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

40. Is Dimension Order Important when Valuing Health States Using Discrete Choice Experiments Including Duration?

Author

Rosalie Viney, John Brazier, Paula Lorgelly, Julie Ratcliffe, Emily Lancsar, Brendan Mulhern, Richard Norman, Mulhern, Brendan, Norman, Richard, Lorgelly, Paula, Lancsar, Emily, Ratcliffe, Julie, Brazier, John, and Viney, Rosalie

Subjects
Adult, Male, Adolescent, discrete choice, Health Status, Discrete choice experiment, Logistic regression, health state valuation studies, Choice Behavior, Health administration, 03 medical and health sciences, Young Adult, 0302 clinical medicine, Surveys and Questionnaires, Statistics, Order dimension, Econometrics, Humans, 030212 general & internal medicine, Valuation (finance), Mathematics, Aged, Pharmacology, Health economics, dimension order, 030503 health policy & services, Health Policy, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Middle Aged, Models, Theoretical, Quality-adjusted life year, EQ-5D-5L, Logistic Models, Health Policy & Services, Female, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, utility values, 0305 other medical science, Scale parameter
Abstract

© 2016, Springer International Publishing Switzerland. Background: Discrete choice experiments with duration (DCETTO) can be used to estimate utility values for preference-based measures, such as the EQ-5D-5L. For self-completion, the health dimensions are presented in a standard order. However, for valuation, this may result in order effects. Thus, it is important to understand whether health state dimension ordering affects values. The aim of this study was to examine the importance of dimension ordering on DCE values using EQ-5D-5L. Methods: A choice experiment presenting two health profiles and a third immediate death option was developed. A three-arm study was used, with the same 120 choice sets presented online across each arm (n = 360 per arm). Arm 1 presented the standard EQ-5D-5L dimension order, arm 2 randomised order between respondents, and arm 3 randomised within respondents. Conditional logit regression was used to assess model consistency, and scale parameter testing was used to assess model poolability. Results: There were minor inconsistencies across each arm, but the magnitudes of the coefficients produced were generally consistent. Arm 3 produced the largest range of utility values (1 to −0.980). Scale parameter testing suggested that the models did not differ, and the data could be pooled. Follow-up questions did not suggest variation in terms of difficulty. Conclusions: The results suggest that the level of randomisation used in DCE health state valuation studies does not significantly impact values, and dimension order may not be as important as other study design issues. The results support past valuation studies that use the standard order of dimensions.

Published
2016

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results