Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Methodology for measuring health-state preferences—.J Clin Epidemiol. 1989; 42: 345-354
- Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk.Econometrica. 1979; 1979: 263-291
- Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty.J Risk Uncert. 1992; 5: 297-323
- “Expected utility” analysis without the independence axiom.Econometrica. 1982; 1982: 277-323
- Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life.Qual Life Res. 1993; 2: 477-487
- Automated utility assessment of global health.Qual Life Res. 1996; 5: 175-182
- Comparison of the standard gamble, rating scale, AQLQ and SF-36 for measuring quality of life in asthma.Eur Respir J. 2001; 18: 38-44
- Can the standard gamble and rating scale be used to measure quality of life in rhinoconjunctivitis? Comparison with the RQLQ and SF036.Allergy. 2002; 57: 201-206
Brunner HI, Maker D, Grundland B, Young NL, Blanchette V, Stein A-M, Feldman BM. Can we measure utilities/health related quality of life (HRQL) in children with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKD)? Med Decis Making; in press.
- Preferences for health states: a review of measurement methods.Mead Johnson Symp Perinat Dev Med. 1982; 20: 37-45
O'Brien BJ, Torrance GW, Moran LA. A practical guide to health state preference measurement: a video introduction. Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis. Working Paper No. 95–97. Hamilton; 1995.
- The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies.Ann Med. 2001; 33: 375-384
- A comprehensive multiattribute system for classifying the health status of survivors of childhood cancer.J Clin Oncol. 1992; 10: 923-928
- Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2.Med Care. 1996; 34: 702-722
- Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system.Med Care. 2002; 40: 113-128
- Child health questionnaire (CHQ): a user's manual.The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, Boston1996
- Measuring patient preferences: rating scale versus standard gamble.Med Decis Making. 1995; 15: 283-285
- Health utilities index.in: Spilker B. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Philadelphia1996: 239-252
- Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states?.Med Decis Making. 2001; 21: 329-334
- Theory of games and economic behavior.Wiley, New York1953
- Utility assessment in cancer patients: adjustment of time tradeoff scores for the utility of life years and comparison with standard gamble scores.Med Decis Making. 1994; 14: 82-90
- Statistics in medicine.Little, Brown and Company, Boston1974
- Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research.Arthritis Rheum. 1985; 28: 542-547
- Construct validation of the health utilities index and the child health questionnaire in children undergoing cancer chemotherapy.Br J Cancer. 2003; 88: 1185-1190
- Discrepancies between chained and classic utilities induced by anchoring with occasional adjustments.Med Decis Making. 2002; 22: 53-64
- Multiplicative multi-attribute utility function for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) system: a technical report.McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, CHEPA Working Paper 98–11, Hamilton, Ontario1998
- Comparison of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D in patients treated for intermittent claudication.Qual Life Res. 2000; 9: 591-601
- Patient and community preferences for outcomes in prostate cancer: implications for clinical policy.M. ed Care. 2003; 41: 153-164