174 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37420133)
1. The effect of duration and time preference on the gap between adult and child health state valuations in time trade-off.
Lang Z; Attema AE; Lipman SA
Eur J Health Econ; 2024 Jun; 25(4):601-613. PubMed ID: 37420133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Time and lexicographic preferences in the valuation of EQ-5D-Y with time trade-off methodology.
Lipman SA; Zhang L; Shah KK; Attema AE
Eur J Health Econ; 2023 Mar; 24(2):293-305. PubMed ID: 35596831
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. How different are composite and traditional TTO valuations of severe EQ-5D-5L states?
Xie F; Pullenayegum E; Gaebel K; Bansback N; Bryan S; Ohinmaa A; Poissant L; Johnson JA
Qual Life Res; 2016 Aug; 25(8):2101-8. PubMed ID: 26875190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Valuation of the EQ-5D-5L with composite time trade-off for the German population - an exploratory study.
Ludwig K; von der Schulenburg JG; Greiner W
Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2017 Feb; 15(1):39. PubMed ID: 28219389
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Using Time Trade-Off Values to Estimate EQ-5D-Y Value Sets: An Exploratory Study.
Yang Z; Jiang J; Wang P; Wu J; Fang Y; Feng D; Xi X; Luo N
Value Health; 2023 Jul; 26(7):968-973. PubMed ID: 36921897
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Can Independently Elicited Adult- and Child-Perspective Health-State Utilities Explain Priority Setting?
Attema AE; Lang Z; Lipman SA
Value Health; 2023 Nov; 26(11):1645-1654. PubMed ID: 37659690
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. An exploration of methods for obtaining 0 = dead anchors for latent scale EQ-5D-Y values.
Shah KK; Ramos-Goñi JM; Kreimeier S; Devlin NJ
Eur J Health Econ; 2020 Sep; 21(7):1091-1103. PubMed ID: 32506281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Valuation of EuroQol Five-Dimensional Questionnaire, Youth Version (EQ-5D-Y) and EuroQol Five-Dimensional Questionnaire, Three-Level Version (EQ-5D-3L) Health States: The Impact of Wording and Perspective.
Kreimeier S; Oppe M; Ramos-Goñi JM; Cole A; Devlin N; Herdman M; Mulhern B; Shah KK; Stolk E; Rivero-Arias O; Greiner W
Value Health; 2018 Nov; 21(11):1291-1298. PubMed ID: 30442276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Testing 2 Alternative Time Trade-Off Methods for Valuation of Children's Health States.
Yang Z; Devlin NJ; Rand K; Luo N
Value Health; 2024 Jan; 27(1):43-50. PubMed ID: 37813195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A direct comparison between discrete choice with duration and composite time trade-off methods: do they produce similar results?
Roudijk B; Jonker MF; Bailey H; Pullenayegum E
Value Health; 2024 Jun; ():. PubMed ID: 38843979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Self vs. other, child vs. adult. An experimental comparison of valuation perspectives for valuation of EQ-5D-Y-3L health states.
Lipman SA; Reckers-Droog VT; Karimi M; Jakubczyk M; Attema AE
Eur J Health Econ; 2021 Dec; 22(9):1507-1518. PubMed ID: 34611793
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Modifying the Composite Time Trade-Off Method to Improve Its Discriminatory Power.
Jakubczyk M; Lipman SA; Roudijk B; Norman R; Pullenayegum E; Yang Y; Gu NY; Stolk E
Value Health; 2023 Feb; 26(2):280-291. PubMed ID: 36244905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. In a Child's Shoes: Composite Time Trade-Off Valuations for EQ-5D-Y-3L with Different Proxy Perspectives.
Lipman SA; Essers BAB; Finch AP; Sajjad A; Stalmeier PFM; Roudijk B
Pharmacoeconomics; 2022 Dec; 40(Suppl 2):181-192. PubMed ID: 36255560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Value Set for the EQ-5D-Y-3L in Hungary.
Rencz F; Ruzsa G; Bató A; Yang Z; Finch AP; Brodszky V
Pharmacoeconomics; 2022 Dec; 40(Suppl 2):205-215. PubMed ID: 36123448
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A Methodological Study to Compare Alternative Modes of Administration With Value EQ-5D Using Preference-Elicitation Techniques.
Hill SR; Gibson A; Oluboyede Y; Longworth L; Bennett B; Shaw JW
Value Health; 2024 Jun; 27(6):784-793. PubMed ID: 38467189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A hybrid modelling approach for eliciting health state preferences: the Portuguese EQ-5D-5L value set.
Ferreira PL; Antunes P; Ferreira LN; Pereira LN; Ramos-Goñi JM
Qual Life Res; 2019 Dec; 28(12):3163-3175. PubMed ID: 31201730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Valuing child and adolescent health: a qualitative study on different perspectives and priorities taken by the adult general public.
Powell PA; Rowen D; Rivero-Arias O; Tsuchiya A; Brazier JE
Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2021 Sep; 19(1):222. PubMed ID: 34556133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. EQ-5D-Y Value Set for Germany.
Kreimeier S; Mott D; Ludwig K; Greiner W;
Pharmacoeconomics; 2022 Dec; 40(Suppl 2):217-229. PubMed ID: 35604633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
