These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23224226)
21. A comparison of individual and collective decision making for standard gamble and time trade-off. Attema AE; Bleichrodt H; l'Haridon O; Lipman SA Eur J Health Econ; 2020 Apr; 21(3):465-473. PubMed ID: 31902024 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Valuing Child Health Utility 9D health states with a young adolescent sample: a feasibility study to compare best-worst scaling discrete-choice experiment, standard gamble and time trade-off methods. Ratcliffe J; Couzner L; Flynn T; Sawyer M; Stevens K; Brazier J; Burgess L Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2011; 9(1):15-27. PubMed ID: 21033766 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Risk attitude and preferences in person's hypothetically facing open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Letterstål A; Olofsson P; Forsberg C J Vasc Nurs; 2012 Dec; 30(4):112-7. PubMed ID: 23127427 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Utility Measures in Pediatric Temporary Health States: Comparison of Prone Positioning Valuation Through 5 Assessment Tools. Shahjouei S; Vafaei Sadr A; Khorasani S; Nejat F; Habibi Z; Akbari Sari A Value Health Reg Issues; 2019 May; 18():97-105. PubMed ID: 30897544 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Time trade-off and ranking exercises are sensitive to different dimensions of EQ-5D health states. Rand-Hendriksen K; Augestad LA Value Health; 2012; 15(5):777-82. PubMed ID: 22867789 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Acceptability of computerized visual analog scale, time trade-off and standard gamble rating methods in patients and the public. Lenert LA; Sturley AE Proc AMIA Symp; 2001; ():364-8. PubMed ID: 11825211 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Health utility scores of colorectal cancer based on societal preference in Japan. Shiroiwa T; Fukuda T; Tsutani K Qual Life Res; 2009 Oct; 18(8):1095-103. PubMed ID: 19626462 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Health-related quality of life in patients with uveitis. Shamdas M; Bassilious K; Murray PI Br J Ophthalmol; 2019 Sep; 103(9):1284-1288. PubMed ID: 30361275 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. A fallacy of the multiplicative QALY model for low-quality weights in students and patients judging hypothetical health states. Stalmeier PF; Chapman GB; de Boer AG; van Lanschot JJ Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2001; 17(4):488-96. PubMed ID: 11758293 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Utility values for specific chronic myeloid leukemia chronic phase health states from the general public in the United Kingdom. Guest JF; Gray EJ; Szczudlo T; Magestro M Leuk Lymphoma; 2014 Aug; 55(8):1870-5. PubMed ID: 24313831 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Attitudes toward quality of survival. The concept of "maximal endurable time". Sutherland HJ; Llewellyn-Thomas H; Boyd NF; Till JE Med Decis Making; 1982; 2(3):299-309. PubMed ID: 7169936 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. On the (not so) constant proportional trade-off in TTO. Attema AE; Brouwer WB Qual Life Res; 2010 May; 19(4):489-97. PubMed ID: 20151207 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Applicability of patient utilities as measures of overall quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. Ward MM; Guthrie LC Rheumatology (Oxford); 2017 Feb; 56(2):239-246. PubMed ID: 27789761 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Living up to expectations: Experimental tests of subjective life expectancy as reference point in time trade-off and standard gamble. Lipman SA; Brouwer WBF; Attema AE J Health Econ; 2020 May; 71():102318. PubMed ID: 32229049 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Determinants of time trade-off valuations for EQ-5D-5L health states: data from the Canadian EQ-5D-5L valuation study. Sayah FA; Bansback N; Bryan S; Ohinmaa A; Poissant L; Pullenayegum E; Xie F; Johnson JA Qual Life Res; 2016 Jul; 25(7):1679-85. PubMed ID: 26659899 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Challenges to time trade-off utility assessment methods: when should you consider alternative approaches? Boye KS; Matza LS; Feeny DH; Johnston JA; Bowman L; Jordan JB Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2014 Jun; 14(3):437-50. PubMed ID: 24832003 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Do visual analogue scale (VAS) derived standard gamble (SG) utilities agree with Health Utilities Index utilities? A comparison of patient and community preferences for health status in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Rashidi AA; Anis AH; Marra CA Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2006 Apr; 4():25. PubMed ID: 16626489 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Should "standard gamble" and "'time trade off" utility measurement be used more in mental health research? Flood C J Ment Health Policy Econ; 2010 Jun; 13(2):65-72. PubMed ID: 20919593 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. A (Latent) Class of Their Own: Response Patterns in Trading Off Quantity and Quality of Life in Time Trade-Off Exercises. van Nooten FE; Houghton K; van Exel J; van Agthoven M; Brouwer WBF; Stull DE Value Health; 2017 Dec; 20(10):1403-1410. PubMed ID: 29241900 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Methods for measuring temporary health States for cost-utility analyses. Wright DR; Wittenberg E; Swan JS; Miksad RA; Prosser LA Pharmacoeconomics; 2009; 27(9):713-23. PubMed ID: 19757865 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]