| Journal Article |
File Downloads |
Abstract Views |
| Last month |
3 months |
12 months |
Total |
Last month |
3 months |
12 months |
Total |
| 3L, 5L, What the L? A NICE Conundrum |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
40 |
| A Qualitative Study of the Views of Health and Social Care Decision-Makers on the Role of Wellbeing in Resource Allocation Decisions in the UK |
0 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
66 |
| A Review of Generic Preference-Based Measures for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Models |
0 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
17 |
| A checklist for judging preference‐based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics |
0 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
337 |
| A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis |
0 |
0 |
0 |
16 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
95 |
| A comparison of patient and population values for health states in varicose veins patients |
0 |
0 |
0 |
13 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
114 |
| A comparison of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D across seven patient groups |
0 |
0 |
0 |
122 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
481 |
| A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures |
0 |
0 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
64 |
| A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF‐6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index |
0 |
0 |
0 |
22 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
218 |
| AN AUSTRALIAN DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT TO VALUE EQ‐5D HEALTH STATES |
0 |
0 |
1 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
30 |
| An Economic Review of the NHS White Paper |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
68 |
| 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 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
24 |
| Best-worst scaling vs. discrete choice experiments: An empirical comparison using social care data |
0 |
0 |
0 |
27 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
134 |
| Comparison of Modes of Administration and Alternative Formats for Eliciting Societal Preferences for Burden of Illness |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
21 |
| Comparison of health state utility values derived using time trade-off, rank and discrete choice data anchored on the full health-dead scale |
0 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
82 |
| Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets |
0 |
0 |
0 |
59 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
215 |
| Correction to: 3L, 5L, What the L? A NICE Conundrum |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
32 |
| Description of an individual patient methodology for calculating the cost-effectiveness of treatments for osteoporosis in women |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
20 |
| Determining Value in Health Technology Assessment: Stay the Course or Tack Away? |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
37 |
| Developing Adolescent-Specific Health State Values for Economic Evaluation |
0 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
64 |
| Discounting and cost‐effectiveness in NICE – stepping back to sort out a confusion |
0 |
0 |
0 |
88 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
302 |
| Does the EQ-5D Reflect Lost Earnings? |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
95 |
| Does the whole equal the sum of the parts? Patient‐assigned utility scores for IBS‐related health states and profiles |
0 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
226 |
| EQ-5D in skin conditions: an assessment of validity and responsiveness |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
22 |
| EQ‐5D‐5L: Smaller steps but a major step change? |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
| Erratum to ‘Health state values for the health utilities index mark 2 descriptive system: results from a UK valuation survey’ Health Economics 2005; 14(3): 231–244 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
51 |
| Estimating Health State Utility Values for Comorbidities |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
7 |
| Estimating an exchange rate between the EQ-5D-3L and ASCOT |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
16 |
| Estimating utilities from individual health preference data: a nonparametric Bayesian method |
0 |
0 |
0 |
35 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
130 |
| Estimation of Utilities in Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder for Economic Evaluations |
0 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
115 |
| Examining the impact of 11 long-standing health conditions on health-related quality of life using the EQ-5D in a general population sample |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
29 |
| Experience-based utility and own health state valuation for a health state classification system: why and how to do it |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
17 |
| Health state utilities for skeletal-related events secondary to bone metastases |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
39 |
| Health state values for the HUI 2 descriptive system: results from a UK survey |
0 |
0 |
0 |
13 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
120 |
| Health, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Quality of Life: What is the Difference? |
0 |
2 |
8 |
74 |
1 |
7 |
40 |
311 |
| How do individuals value health states? A qualitative investigation |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
| Improving Cross-Sector Comparisons: Going Beyond the Health-Related QALY |
0 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
36 |
| Introduction |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
| Is Dimension Order Important when Valuing Health States Using Discrete Choice Experiments Including Duration? |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
| Is Meta-Analysis for Utility Values Appropriate Given the Potential Impact Different Elicitation Methods Have on Values? |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
10 |
| Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in CUA’ by Parkin and Devlin a response: ‘yes there is a case, but what does it add to ordinal data? |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
108 |
| Mapping between Visual Analogue Scale and Standard Gamble data; results from the UK Health Utilities Index 2 valuation survey |
0 |
0 |
0 |
29 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
256 |
| Measures of health‐related quality of life in an imperfect world: a comment on Dowie |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
28 |
| Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life in Adolescent Populations: An Empirical Comparison of the CHU9D and the PedsQLTM 4.0 Short Form 15 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
23 |
| Measuring quality of life in mental health: Are we asking the right questions? |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
38 |
| Modelling SF-6D health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method |
0 |
0 |
0 |
62 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
150 |
| Modelling covariates for the SF-6D standard gamble health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
36 |
| Multi-attribute utility function or statistical inference models: A comparison of health state valuation models using the HUI2 health state classification system |
0 |
0 |
0 |
33 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
145 |
| Nothing About Us Without Us? A Comparison of Adolescent and Adult Health‐State Values for the Child Health Utility‐9D Using Profile Case Best–Worst Scaling |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
15 |
| Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra |
0 |
0 |
0 |
159 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
605 |
| Recommended Methods for the Collection of Health State Utility Value Evidence in Clinical Studies |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
| Sourcing and Using Appropriate Health State Utility Values in Economic Models in Health Care |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
| The Identification, Review and Synthesis of Health State Utility Values from the Literature |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
| The Role of Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures in Health Technology Assessment |
0 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
13 |
| The SF‐36 health survey questionnaire—a tool for economists |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
| The Use of Health State Utility Values in Decision Models |
0 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
16 |
| The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
181 |
2 |
4 |
10 |
487 |
| The impact of adding an extra dimension to a preference-based measure |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
35 |
| The use of condition specific outcome measures in economic appraisal |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
| Understanding the effect of disease adaptation information on general population values for hypothetical health states |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
50 |
| Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values |
0 |
0 |
0 |
23 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
80 |
| Using rank data to estimate health state utility models |
0 |
0 |
0 |
43 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
146 |
| Valuing Child Health Utility 9D Health States with Young Adults: Insights from a Time Trade Off Study |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
25 |
| Valuing child health utility 9D health states with a young adolescent sample |
0 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
99 |
| Valuing states from multiple measures on the same visual analogue sale: a feasibility study |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
40 |
| Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
25 |
| Valuing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D health states using subjective well-being: A secondary analysis of patient data |
0 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
113 |
| Total Journal Articles |
1 |
3 |
18 |
1,199 |
16 |
36 |
123 |
6,305 |
LogEc is hosted by the
Örebro University School of Business.