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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

178 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30030818)

  • 21. Are Health State Valuations from the General Public Biased? A Test of Health State Reference Dependency Using Self-assessed Health and an Efficient Discrete Choice Experiment.
    Jonker MF; Attema AE; Donkers B; Stolk EA; Versteegh MM
    Health Econ; 2017 Dec; 26(12):1534-1547. PubMed ID: 27790801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Advocating a Paradigm Shift in Health-State Valuations: The Estimation of Time-Preference Corrected QALY Tariffs.
    Jonker MF; Donkers B; de Bekker-Grob EW; Stolk EA
    Value Health; 2018 Aug; 21(8):993-1001. PubMed ID: 30098678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Estimating a Preference-Based Value Set for the Mental Health Quality of Life Questionnaire (MHQoL).
    van Krugten FCW; Jonker MF; Himmler SFW; Hakkaart-van Roijen L; Brouwer WBF
    Med Decis Making; 2024 Jan; 44(1):64-75. PubMed ID: 37981788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Mimicking Real-Life Decision Making in Health: Allowing Respondents Time to Think in a Discrete Choice Experiment.
    Veldwijk J; Johansson JV; Donkers B; de Bekker-Grob EW
    Value Health; 2020 Jul; 23(7):945-952. PubMed ID: 32762997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Using a discrete choice experiment to elicit time trade-off and willingness-to-pay amounts for influenza health-related quality of life at different ages.
    Prosser LA; Payne K; Rusinak D; Shi P; Messonnier M
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2013 Apr; 31(4):305-15. PubMed ID: 23512145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. An Australian discrete choice experiment to value eq-5d health states.
    Viney R; Norman R; Brazier J; Cronin P; King MT; Ratcliffe J; Street D
    Health Econ; 2014 Jun; 23(6):729-42. PubMed ID: 23765787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Using DCE and ranking data to estimate cardinal values for health states for deriving a preference-based single index from the sexual quality of life questionnaire.
    Ratcliffe J; Brazier J; Tsuchiya A; Symonds T; Brown M
    Health Econ; 2009 Nov; 18(11):1261-76. PubMed ID: 19142985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Valuing the SF-6Dv2 Classification System in the United Kingdom Using a Discrete-choice Experiment With Duration.
    Mulhern BJ; Bansback N; Norman R; Brazier J;
    Med Care; 2020 Jun; 58(6):566-573. PubMed ID: 32221100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Valuing EQ-5D-5L health states 'in context' using a discrete choice experiment.
    Cole A; Shah K; Mulhern B; Feng Y; Devlin N
    Eur J Health Econ; 2018 May; 19(4):595-605. PubMed ID: 28569351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Simulation study to determine the impact of different design features on design efficiency in discrete choice experiments.
    Vanniyasingam T; Cunningham CE; Foster G; Thabane L
    BMJ Open; 2016 Jul; 6(7):e011985. PubMed ID: 27436671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Valuing SF-6D Health States Using a Discrete Choice Experiment.
    Norman R; Viney R; Brazier J; Burgess L; Cronin P; King M; Ratcliffe J; Street D
    Med Decis Making; 2014 Aug; 34(6):773-86. PubMed ID: 24025661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Transforming Latent Utilities to Health Utilities: East Does Not Meet West.
    Xie F; Pullenayegum E; Pickard AS; Ramos Goñi JM; Jo MW; Igarashi A
    Health Econ; 2017 Dec; 26(12):1524-1533. PubMed ID: 27747973
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods.
    Bahrampour M; Byrnes J; Norman R; Scuffham PA; Downes M
    Eur J Health Econ; 2020 Sep; 21(7):983-992. PubMed ID: 32367379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. One Method, Many Methodological Choices: A Structured Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments for Health State Valuation.
    Mulhern B; Norman R; Street DJ; Viney R
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2019 Jan; 37(1):29-43. PubMed ID: 30194624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. A Systematic Review Comparing the Acceptability, Validity and Concordance of Discrete Choice Experiments and Best-Worst Scaling for Eliciting Preferences in Healthcare.
    Whitty JA; Oliveira Gonçalves AS
    Patient; 2018 Jun; 11(3):301-317. PubMed ID: 29177797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Is bad living better than good death? Impact of demographic and cultural factors on health state preference.
    Jin X; Liu GG; Luo N; Li H; Guan H; Xie F
    Qual Life Res; 2016 Apr; 25(4):979-86. PubMed ID: 26346987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Using Discrete Choice Experiments with Duration to Model EQ-5D-5L Health State Preferences.
    Mulhern B; Bansback N; Hole AR; Tsuchiya A
    Med Decis Making; 2017 Apr; 37(3):285-297. PubMed ID: 27681988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Transforming discrete choice experiment latent scale values for EQ-5D-3L using the visual analogue scale.
    Webb EJD; O'Dwyer J; Meads D; Kind P; Wright P
    Eur J Health Econ; 2020 Jul; 21(5):787-800. PubMed ID: 32180068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.
    Clark MD; Determann D; Petrou S; Moro D; de Bekker-Grob EW
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2014 Sep; 32(9):883-902. PubMed ID: 25005924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.