LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: Department of Economics, City University London
Languages: English
Types: Book
Subjects: HB
This paper critically reviews theoretical and empirical propositions regarding visual analogue scale (VAS) valuations of health states and their use in Cost Utility Analysis. An oft-repeated conclusion in the economic evaluation literature is the inferiority, on theoretical grounds, of VAS valuations. Common criticisms are that VAS lacks a theoretical foundation; that VAS values are not ‘choice based’; that VAS values are not consistent with utility-under-uncertainty requirements; and that context and range effects observed in VAS valuation data mean that they cannot even be considered to represent measurable value functions.\ud \ud We address each of the above points, critically reviewing the economic and psychometric literature relating to theories of utility and theories of utility measurement, and the welfarist and non-welfarist literature relating to social choices and QALYs.\ud \ud We conclude that there are strong grounds, both theoretical and empirical, for challenging the apparently emerging consensus that VAS valuations should not be used in economic assessments. The theoretical appeal of alternatives such as the standard gamble is valid only at the level of individuals, rather than social decision-making. Further, the non-welfarist foundations of CUA do not require health state valuations to be grounded in any particular theory of utility, suggesting that the selection of the appropriate valuation method should be based on empirical performance. The VAS has important advantages over rival techniques such as standard gamble and time trade-off. However, we identify a number of areas in which further research is required to establish and consolidate the potential of VAS as a valuation method.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Abdellaoui, M., Barrios, C. and Wakker, P. (2002) Reconciling introspective utility with revealed preference:experimental arguments based on prospect theory. CREED, Department of Economics, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. http://www1.fee.uva.nl/creed/wakker/pdf/mocawa.pdf Birch, S. and Donaldson, C. (2003) Valuing the benefits and costs of health care programmes: where's the 'extra' in extra-welfarism? Social Science and Medicine 56(5): 1121-33.
    • Bleichrodt, H., Johanesson, M. (1997) An experimental test of a theoretical foundation for rating scale valuations. Medical Decision Making 17: 208-216.
    • Boyle, M.H., Torrance, G.W., Sinclair, J.C. and Horwood, S.P. (1983) Economic evaluation of neonatal intensive care of very-low-birth-weight infants. The New England Journal of Medicine, 308: 1330-1337.
    • Brazier, J., Deverill, M., Green, C., Harper, R. and Booth, A. (1999) A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. NHS R&D HTA programme, Health Technology Assessment 3(9).
    • Brooks, R., Rabin, R. and de Charro, F (eds) (2003) The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective. Kluwer.
    • Broome, J. (1991) QALYs. Journal of Public Economics 50(2) 150-167.
    • Camerer, C. (1993) Individual decision-making in: Kagel, J., Roth, A. (eds) Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton University Press.
    • Culyer, A.J. Lavers, R.J., Williams, A. (1971) Social indicators: health. Social Trends No. 2.
    • Culyer, A.J. (1976) Need and the National Health Service. York Studies in Economics. Martin Robertson.
    • Culyer, A.J. (1991) The normative economics of health care finance and provision. In: McGuire, A., Fenn, P., Mayhew, K (eds) Providing health care. Oxford University Press.
    • Torrance, G.W., Boyle, M.H., Horwood, S.P (1982) Application of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Operations Research 30(6):1043-68.
    • Torrance, G.W. (1986) Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review.
    • Journal of Health Economics 5(1): 1-30.
    • Torrance, G.W., Feeny, D. and Furlong, W. (2001) Visual Analog Scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Medical Decision Making 21(4): 329-334.
    • Tsuchiya, A. and Williams, A. (2001) Welfare economics and economic evaluation. Ch. 2 in: Mc Guire, A., Drummond, M.F (2001) Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. Oxford University Press.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article