Chapter 14 – New Developments

This chapter highlights some new developments in the field of health-outcomes measurement. One that can substantially enhance the efficiency, quality, and options for the measurement of perceived health regards the use of computers and information technology. For example, the full flexibility of item-response theory measurement can only be attained if the models are combined with adaptive computerized measurement. Another promising turn is the renewed interest in patient input that has prompted research into qualitative aspects of health, which could be taken up in the development of instruments at an early stage of the process. Qualitative research should be conducted in samples of the target population to establish content validity. Most efforts to extend and adapt measurement methods seem to be taking place in the field of preference-based measurement. The most interesting developments in this area are briefly introduced here.

[1]  R. Hays,et al.  US valuation of health outcomes measured using the PROMIS-29. , 2013, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[2]  Joshua A Salomon,et al.  Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data , 2003, Population health metrics.

[3]  Anthony O'Hagan,et al.  Using rank data to estimate health state utility models. , 2006, Journal of health economics.

[4]  P. Krabbe,et al.  Quantification of Health by Scaling Similarity Judgments , 2014, PloS one.

[5]  Deborah Cooper,et al.  Putting the Q into quality of life; the identification of subjective constructions of health-related quality of life using Q methodology. , 2003, Social science & medicine.

[6]  G. H. Fischer,et al.  Logistic latent trait models with linear constraints , 1983 .

[7]  P. Stalmeier,et al.  On the Assessment of Preferences for Health and Duration: Maximal Endurable Time and Better Than Dead Preferences , 2007, Medical care.

[8]  Elizabeth Molsen,et al.  Content validity--establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report: part 2--assessing respondent understanding. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[9]  J. Brazier,et al.  Comparison of health state utility values derived using time trade-off, rank and discrete choice data anchored on the full health-dead scale , 2012, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[10]  Ulf Böckenholt,et al.  Structural equation modeling of paired-comparison and ranking data. , 2005, Psychological methods.

[11]  J. Brazier,et al.  Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. , 2012, Journal of health economics.

[12]  The Better than Dead Method: Feasibility and Interpretation of a Valuation Study , 2014, PharmacoEconomics.

[13]  J. Louviere,et al.  Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best–worst choices , 2005 .

[14]  Mark Oppe,et al.  A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. , 2014, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[15]  E. Perloff,et al.  Clinimetrics and psychometrics work hand in hand. , 1999, Archives of internal medicine.

[16]  K. Gaebel,et al.  PIH39 Eliciting Preferences to the EQ-5D-5L Health States: Discrete Choice Experiment or Multiprofile Case of Best-Worst Scaling , 2012 .

[17]  K. Stevens,et al.  The use of qualitative methods in developing the descriptive systems of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life for use in economic evaluation. , 2012, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[18]  J. Kruskal.  Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method , 1964 .

[19]  Michael C. Edwards,et al.  A Markov Chain Monte Carlo Approach to Confirmatory Item Factor Analysis , 2010 .

[20]  John Brazier,et al.  Assessing the Health-Related Quality of Life of Australian Adolescents: An Empirical Comparison of the Child Health Utility 9D and EQ-5D-Y Instruments. , 2015, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[21]  R. Shepard.  Metric structures in ordinal data , 1966 .

[22]  N. Boyd,et al.  Attitudes Toward Quality of Survival , 1982, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[23]  T. Flynn.  Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best–worst scaling , 2010, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[24]  R. Shepard.  Circularity in Judgments of Relative Pitch , 1964 .

[25]  J. Tenenbaum,et al.  A global geometric framework for nonlinear dimensionality reduction. , 2000, Science.

[26]  Joshua A Salomon,et al.  Quantification of Health States with Rank-Based Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[27]  J. Cairns,et al.  Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: methodology report. , 2014, Health technology assessment.

[28]  R. Hays,et al.  Demographic Differences in Health Preferences in the United States , 2014, Medical care.

[29]  N. Leidy,et al.  Content validity--establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 1--eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[30]  K. Stevens.  How Well Do the Generic Multi-attribute Utility Instruments Incorporate Patient and Public Views Into Their Descriptive Systems? , 2016, The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

[31]  Richard Norman,et al.  The Impact of Different DCE-Based Approaches When Anchoring Utility Scores , 2016, PharmacoEconomics.

[32]  L. Lamers.  The Transformation of Utilities for Health States Worse Than Death: Consequences for the Estimation of EQ-5D Value Sets , 2007, Medical care.

[33]  P. Stalmeier,et al.  The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. , 2006, Health economics.

[34]  G. Fava,et al.  Psychometric Theory Is an Obstacle to the Progress of Clinical Research , 2004, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics.

[35]  R. Shepard.  The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. II , 1962 .

[36]  Paul F. M. Krabbe,et al.  A Generalized Measurement Model to Quantify Health: The Multi-Attribute Preference Response Model , 2013, PloS one.

[37]  J. Brazier,et al.  Valuing child health utility 9D health states with a young adolescent sample , 2011, Applied health economics and health policy.

[38]  J. Kruskal.  Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis , 1964 .

[39]  T. Peters,et al.  Best--worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it. , 2007, Journal of health economics.

[40]  P. Fayers.  Applying item response theory and computer adaptive testing: the challenges for health outcomes assessment , 2007, Quality of Life Research.