Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Valuing quality of life for economic evaluations in cancer: navigating multiple methods.
Ng, Carrie-Anne; De Abreu Lourenco, Richard; Viney, Rosalie; Norman, Richard; King, Madeleine T; Kim, Nancy; Mulhern, Brendan.
Afiliación
  • Ng CA; Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • De Abreu Lourenco R; Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Viney R; Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Norman R; School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
  • King MT; School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Kim N; Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Mulhern B; Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39158365
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

Utility values offer a quantitative means to evaluate the impact of novel cancer treatments on patients' quality of life (QoL). However, the multiple methods available for valuing QoL present challenges in selecting the most appropriate method across different contexts. AREAS COVERED This review provides cancer clinicians and researchers with an overview of methods to value QoL for economic evaluations, including standalone and derived preference-based measures (PBMs) and direct preference elicitation methods. Recent developments are described, including the comparative performance of cancer-specific PBMs versus generic PBMs, measurement of outcomes beyond health-related QoL, and increased use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Recommendations and considerations are provided to guide the choice of method for cancer research. EXPERT OPINION We foresee continued adoption of the QLU-C10D and FACT-8D in cancer clinical trials given the extensive use of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G in cancer research. While these cancer-specific PBMs offer the convenience of eliciting utility values without needing a standalone PBM, researchers should consider potential limitations if they intend to substitute them for generic PBMs. As the field advances, there is a greater need for consensus on the approach to selection and integration of various methods in cancer clinical trials.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res Asunto de la revista: FARMACOLOGIA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Australia

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res Asunto de la revista: FARMACOLOGIA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Australia