X hits on this document

PDF document

A CHECKLIST FOR CONJOINT ANALYSIS APPLICATIONS IN HEALTH: REPORT OF THE ISPOR CONJOINT ANALYSIS GOOD ... - page 17 / 17

62 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

17 / 17

  • 31.

    Carlsson F, Martinsson P. Design techniques for stated-preference methods in health economics. Health Economics 2003;12(4):281-294.

  • 32.

    Lloyd AJ, McIntosh E, Williams AE, Kaptein A, Rabe KF. How does patient’s quality of life guide their preferences regarding aspects of asthma therapy? Patient 2008; 1: 309-316

  • 33.

    Orme BK. Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies fr Product Design and Pricing Research. Madison Wisconsin: Research Publishers LLC. 2006.

  • 34.

    Oppe M, Szende A, de Charro F. Comparative review of Visual Analogue Scale Value Sets. in EQ-5D Value Sets: Inventory, Comparative Review and User Guide Vol. 2. EuroQoL Group Monographs (Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N, Eds.): Netherlands: Springer. 2007

  • 35.

    Lloyd AJ Threats to the estimation of benefit: Are preference elicitation methods accurate? Health Econ 2003; 12(5):393-402.

  • 36.

    Kjaer T, Bech M, Gyrd-Hansen D, Hart-Hansen K. Ordering effect and price sensitivity in discrete choice experiments: need we worry? Health Econ. 2006; 15:1217-28.

  • 37.

    Johnson FR, Hauber AB, Osoba D, Hsu M, Coombs J, Copley-Merriman C. Are chemotherapy patients’ HRQoL importance weights consistent with linear scoring rules? A stated-choice approach. Qual Life Res2006;15:285-98.

  • 38.

    Lloyd A, D Penson, S Dewilde, L Kleinman Eliciting patient preferences for hormonal therapy options in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases 2007

  • 39.

    Hauber AB, Mohamed AF, Watson ME, Johnson FR, Hernandez JE. Benefits, risk, and uncertainty: preferences of antiretroviral-naïve African Americans for HIV treatments. AIDS Patient Care STDS 2009;23(1):29-34.

  • 40.

    McColl,E, Fayers,PM. Proxy assessments and context effects, in: Assessing Quality of Life in Clinical Trials: Methods and Practice 2nd edn (ed Fayers,P. M.;Hays,R. D.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005 pp131 - 146

  • 41.

    Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, Erikson P. Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: Report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health 2005; 8(2): 94-104.

  • 42.

    Kleinman L, McIntosh E, Ryan M, Schmier J, Crawley J, Locke GR 3rd, De Lissovoy G. Willingness to pay for complete symptom relief of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Archives of Internal Medicine 2002 Jun 24;162(12):1361-6.

  • 43.

    Johnson FR, Özdemir S, Mansfield CA, Hass S, Miller DW, Siegel CA, Sands BE. Crohn’s disease patients’ benefit-risk preferences: serious adverse event risks versus treatment efficacy. Gastroenterology 2007;133(3):769-79.

  • 44.

    Johnson FR, Hauber AB, Özdemir S. Using conjoint analysis to estimate healthy-year equivalents for acute conditions: an application to vasomotor symptoms. Value Health 2009;12(1): 146-152

  • 45.

    Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Phillips KA, Marshall JK, Thabane L, Kulin NA. Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. Value Health 2007;10(5):415-30.

ISPOR Conjoint Analysis in Health Task Force Report

Page 17

Document info
Document views62
Page views62
Page last viewedTue Jan 17 15:22:20 UTC 2017
Pages17
Paragraphs241
Words8632

Comments