95 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26445967)
1. Comparison of Modes of Administration and Alternative Formats for Eliciting Societal Preferences for Burden of Illness.
Rowen D; Brazier J; Keetharuth A; Tsuchiya A; Mukuria C
Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2016 Feb; 14(1):89-104. PubMed ID: 26445967
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life.
Rowen D; Brazier J; Mukuria C; Keetharuth A; Risa Hole A; Tsuchiya A; Whyte S; Shackley P
Med Decis Making; 2016 Feb; 36(2):210-22. PubMed ID: 26670663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparing internet and face-to-face surveys as methods for eliciting preferences for social care-related quality of life: evidence from England using the ASCOT service user measure.
Saloniki EC; Malley J; Burge P; Lu H; Batchelder L; Linnosmaa I; Trukeschitz B; Forder J
Qual Life Res; 2019 Aug; 28(8):2207-2220. PubMed ID: 30945131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Impact of Survey Administration Mode on the Results of a Health-Related Discrete Choice Experiment: Online and Paper Comparison.
Determann D; Lambooij MS; Steyerberg EW; de Bekker-Grob EW; de Wit GA
Value Health; 2017; 20(7):953-960. PubMed ID: 28712625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. How you ask is what you get: Framing effects in willingness-to-pay for a QALY.
Ahlert M; Breyer F; Schwettmann L
Soc Sci Med; 2016 Feb; 150():40-8. PubMed ID: 26730880
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Binary choice health state valuation and mode of administration: head-to-head comparison of online and CAPI.
Mulhern B; Longworth L; Brazier J; Rowen D; Bansback N; Devlin N; Tsuchiya A
Value Health; 2013; 16(1):104-13. PubMed ID: 23337221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Investigating public preferences on 'severity of health' as a relevant condition for setting healthcare priorities.
Green C
Soc Sci Med; 2009 Jun; 68(12):2247-55. PubMed ID: 19406545
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Are life-extending treatments for terminal illnesses a special case? Exploring choices and societal viewpoints.
McHugh N; van Exel J; Mason H; Godwin J; Collins M; Donaldson C; Baker R
Soc Sci Med; 2018 Feb; 198():61-69. PubMed ID: 29276987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Health-related quality of life in early breast cancer.
Groenvold M
Dan Med Bull; 2010 Sep; 57(9):B4184. PubMed ID: 20816024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. PROM Validation Using Paper-Based or Online Surveys: Data Collection Methods Affect the Sociodemographic and Health Profile of the Sample.
Rowen D; Carlton J; Elliott J
Value Health; 2019 Aug; 22(8):845-850. PubMed ID: 31426923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Societal views on NICE, cancer drugs fund and value-based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: a cross-sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great Britain.
Linley WG; Hughes DA
Health Econ; 2013 Aug; 22(8):948-64. PubMed ID: 22961976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Using a survey to estimate health expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy to assess inequalities in health and quality of life.
Collins B
Value Health; 2013 Jun; 16(4):599-603. PubMed ID: 23796294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. QALY-maximisation and public preferences: results from a general population survey.
Bryan S; Roberts T; Heginbotham C; McCallum A
Health Econ; 2002 Dec; 11(8):679-93. PubMed ID: 12457369
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Equity Weights for Socioeconomic Position: Two Methods-Survey of Stated Preferences and Epidemiological Data.
Lal A; Mohebi M; Sweeney R; Moodie M; Peeters A; Carter R
Value Health; 2019 Feb; 22(2):247-253. PubMed ID: 30711071
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Measuring people's preferences regarding ageism in health: some methodological issues and some fresh evidence.
Tsuchiya A; Dolan P; Shaw R
Soc Sci Med; 2003 Aug; 57(4):687-96. PubMed ID: 12821016
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Public preferences in healthcare resource allocation: A discrete choice experiment in South Korea.
Bae EY; Lim MK; Lee B; Bae G; Hong J
Health Policy; 2023 Dec; 138():104932. PubMed ID: 37924559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. How Robust Are Value Judgments of Health Inequality Aversion? Testing for Framing and Cognitive Effects.
Ali S; Tsuchiya A; Asaria M; Cookson R
Med Decis Making; 2017 Aug; 37(6):635-646. PubMed ID: 28441098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Outcomes of social care for adults: developing a preference-weighted measure.
Netten A; Burge P; Malley J; Potoglou D; Towers AM; Brazier J; Flynn T; Forder J; Wall B
Health Technol Assess; 2012; 16(16):1-166. PubMed ID: 22459668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Using factor analysis to confirm the validity of children's self-reported health-related quality of life across different modes of administration.
Varni JW; Limbers CA; Newman DA
Clin Trials; 2009 Apr; 6(2):185-95. PubMed ID: 19342471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of health state utilities using community and patient preference weights derived from a survey of patients with HIV/AIDS.
Schackman BR; Goldie SJ; Freedberg KA; Losina E; Brazier J; Weinstein MC
Med Decis Making; 2002; 22(1):27-38. PubMed ID: 11833663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
