Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21517837›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2011

Empirical validation of patient versus population preferences in calculating QALYs.

Eva-Julia Weyler, Afschin Gandjour

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Eva-Julia WeylerFaculty of Management, Economics, and Social Sciences, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Afschin Gandjour

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A fundamental assumption of the quality-adjusted life year model is mutual utility independence between life years and health status. However, this assumption may not hold for severe health states: living in a severe health state may cause disutility beyond a so-called maximal endurable time (MET). It is unknown, however, whether persons without experience of a disease, who are often used in health state valuation exercises, account for MET. Using data from 159 respondents from two convenience samples in Germany who were presented a health state description of depression, this study shows that persons without experience of depression had a lower rate of MET than persons with a history of depression. Furthermore, they had more preference reversals in case of MET, thus violating a fundamental principle of rational choice theory. While these findings suggest that severe health states should be assessed by patients rather than the community, confirmation in additional studies outside Germany and based on other health-state valuation techniques and diseases is recommended.

Indexed as

Quality-Adjusted Life YearsAdultAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisDepressionFemaleGermanyHealth Services ResearchHealth Status IndicatorsHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID21517837
PMCPMC3207192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.