| Title |
Experience-based utility and own health state valuation for a health state classification system: why and how to do it
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10198-017-0931-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John Brazier, Donna Rowen, Milad Karimi, Tessa Peasgood, Aki Tsuchiya, Julie Ratcliffe |
| Abstract |
In the estimation of population value sets for health state classification systems such as the EuroQOL five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D), there is increasing interest in asking respondents to value their own health state, sometimes referred to as "experience-based utility values" or, more correctly, own rather than hypothetical health states. Own health state values differ to hypothetical health state values, and this may be attributable to many reasons. This paper critically examines whose values matter; why there is a difference between own and hypothetical values; how to measure own health state values; and why to use own health state values. Finally, the paper examines other ways that own health state values can be taken into account, such as including the use of informed general population preferences that may better take into account experience-based values. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 24% |
| Australia | 4 | 19% |
| Spain | 3 | 14% |
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Mexico | 1 | 5% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 24% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 62% |
| Scientists | 6 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 18% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 10 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 15% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 11 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 December 2017.
All research outputs
#1,781,689
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#61
of 1,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,945
of 333,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#1
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,588 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.