139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37285916)
1. Whose Time Trade-Off Should Be Used? Anchoring Discrete Choice Experiment Latent Utilities in Health State Valuation.
Xie S; Wu J; Xie F
Value Health; 2023 Sep; 26(9):1405-1412. PubMed ID: 37285916
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Do Discrete Choice Experiments Approaches Perform Better Than Time Trade-Off in Eliciting Health State Utilities? Evidence From SF-6Dv2 in China.
Xie S; Wu J; He X; Chen G; Brazier JE
Value Health; 2020 Oct; 23(10):1391-1399. PubMed ID: 33032784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Efficient Designs for Valuation Studies That Use Time Tradeoff (TTO) Tasks to Map Latent Utilities from Discrete Choice Experiments to the Interval Scale: Selection of Health States for TTO Tasks.
Che M; Pullenayegum E
Med Decis Making; 2023 Apr; 43(3):387-396. PubMed ID: 36866604
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A comparison of methods for converting DCE values onto the full health-dead QALY scale.
Rowen D; Brazier J; Van Hout B
Med Decis Making; 2015 Apr; 35(3):328-40. PubMed ID: 25398621
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Valuation of SF-6Dv2 Health States in China Using Time Trade-off and Discrete-Choice Experiment with a Duration Dimension.
Wu J; Xie S; He X; Chen G; Bai G; Feng D; Hu M; Jiang J; Wang X; Wu H; Wu Q; Brazier JE
Pharmacoeconomics; 2021 May; 39(5):521-535. PubMed ID: 33598860
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of Value Set Based on DCE and/or TTO Data: Scoring for EQ-5D-5L Health States in Japan.
Shiroiwa T; Ikeda S; Noto S; Igarashi A; Fukuda T; Saito S; Shimozuma K
Value Health; 2016; 19(5):648-54. PubMed ID: 27565282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Derivation of a UK preference-based value set for the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS) to allow estimation of Mental Well-being Adjusted Life Years (MWALYs).
Yiu HHE; Buckell J; Petrou S; Stewart-Brown S; Madan J
Soc Sci Med; 2023 Jun; 327():115928. PubMed ID: 37201343
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Estimating an EQ-5D-Y-3L Value Set for Indonesia by Mapping the DCE onto TTO Values.
Fitriana TS; Roudijk B; Purba FD; Busschbach JJV; Stolk E
Pharmacoeconomics; 2022 Dec; 40(Suppl 2):157-167. PubMed ID: 36348155
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Discrete choice experiment with duration versus time trade-off: a comparison of test-retest reliability of health utility elicitation approaches in SF-6Dv2 valuation.
Xie S; Wu J; Chen G
Qual Life Res; 2022 Sep; 31(9):2791-2803. PubMed ID: 35610406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Accounting for Unobservable Preference Heterogeneity and Evaluating Alternative Anchoring Approaches to Estimate Country-Specific EQ-5D-Y Value Sets: A Case Study Using Spanish Preference Data.
Ramos-Goñi JM; Oppe M; Estévez-Carrillo A; Rivero-Arias O;
Value Health; 2022 May; 25(5):835-843. PubMed ID: 35500952
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Using Both Time Tradeoff and Discrete Choice Experiments in Valuing the EQ-5D: Impact of Model Misspecification on Value Sets.
Waudby-Smith I; Pickard AS; Xie F; Pullenayegum EM
Med Decis Making; 2020 May; 40(4):483-497. PubMed ID: 32517541
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Test-Retest Reliability of EQ-5D-5L Valuation Techniques: The Composite Time Trade-Off and Discrete Choice Experiments.
Purba FD; Hunfeld JAM; Timman R; Iskandarsyah A; Fitriana TS; Sadarjoen SS; Passchier J; Busschbach JJV
Value Health; 2018 Oct; 21(10):1243-1249. PubMed ID: 30314626
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: methodology report.
Mulhern B; Bansback N; Brazier J; Buckingham K; Cairns J; Devlin N; Dolan P; Hole AR; Kavetsos G; Longworth L; Rowen D; Tsuchiya A
Health Technol Assess; 2014 Feb; 18(12):vii-xxvi, 1-191. PubMed ID: 24568945
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Valuing Health Using Time Trade-Off and Discrete Choice Experiment Methods: Does Dimension Order Impact on Health State Values?
Mulhern B; Shah K; Janssen MF; Longworth L; Ibbotson R
Value Health; 2016; 19(2):210-7. PubMed ID: 27021755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Construct validity of the interview time trade-off and computer time trade-off in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a cross-sectional observational pilot study.
Buitinga L; Braakman-Jansen LM; Taal E; van de Laar MA
BMC Musculoskelet Disord; 2012 Jun; 13():112. PubMed ID: 22730908
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Latent Class Models Reveal Poor Agreement between Discrete-Choice and Time Tradeoff Preferences.
Pullenayegum EM; Pickard AS; Xie F
Med Decis Making; 2019 May; 39(4):421-436. PubMed ID: 30982403
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of four value sets derived using different TTO and DCE approaches: application to the new region-specific PBM, AP-7D.
Shiroiwa T; Murata T; Morii Y; Hoshino E; Fukuda T
Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2024 Feb; 22(1):16. PubMed ID: 38341575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Influenced from the start: anchoring bias in time trade-off valuations.
Augestad LA; Stavem K; Kristiansen IS; Samuelsen CH; Rand-Hendriksen K
Qual Life Res; 2016 Sep; 25(9):2179-91. PubMed ID: 27016943
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
