Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41060572›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2026

United Kingdom value set for the functional assessment of cancer therapy eight dimension (FACT-8D) preference-based quality of life instrument.

R Norman, R Campbell, D Rowen, R Viney, D J Street, F Müller, R Mercieca-Bebber, A S Pickard, D Cella, J W Shaw and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

12 authors.

R NormanSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia. richard.norman@curtin.edu.au.
R CampbellUniversity of Sydney, School of Psychology, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
D RowenSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK.
R VineyCentre for Health Economics Research & Evaluation, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
D J StreetCentre for Health Economics Research & Evaluation, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
F MüllerAmsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Medical Psychology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
R Mercieca-BebberUniversity of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
A S PickardDepartment of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
D CellaDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
J W ShawDepartment of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
M T KingUniversity of Sydney, School of Psychology, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
MAUCa Consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo develop a value set reflecting the United Kingdom (UK) general population's preferences for health states described by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) eight-Dimension preference-based multi-attribute utility instrument (FACT-8D), derived from the FACT-General (FACT-G) cancer-specific health-related quality-of-life (HRQL) questionnaire.

methodsA UK online panel was quota-sampled to achieve a general population sample representative by sex and age (≥ 18y). A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to value health states. The valuation task involved choosing between pairs of health states (choice-sets) described by varying levels of the FACT-8D HRQL dimensions and survival (life-years). The DCE included 800 choice-sets; each respondent was randomly allocated 16 choice-sets. Data were analyzed using conditional logistic regression parameterized to fit the quality-adjusted life-year framework, weighted for sociodemographic variables that were non-representative of the UK general population. Preference weights were calculated as the ratio of HRQL-level coefficients to the survival coefficient.

results2239 panel members opted in, 2125 (95%) completed at least one choice-set, and 2054 (92%) completed 16 choice-sets. Pain and nausea were associated with the largest utility weights, followed by problems with work and sadness. Within dimensions, more severe HRQL levels were generally associated with larger decrements. A preference-weighting algorithm to estimate UK utilities from responses to the FACT-General questionnaire was generated. The worst health state's value was -0.402, worse than dead.

conclusionsThis value set provides UK population utilities for health states defined by the FACT-8D for use in evaluating oncology treatments.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPatient PreferenceQuality of LifeAdolescentAdultAgedChoice BehaviorFemaleHealth StatusHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality-Adjusted Life YearsSocioeconomic FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomCancer-specificCondition-specificHealth-related quality of lifeMulti-attribute utilityOncologyPreference-basedQALYQuality adjusted life yearQuality of lifeValue set

Identifiers

PMID41060572
PMCPMC13190361

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.