Linked Life Data

9565169

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/9565169

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
2
pubmed:dateCreated
1998-7-1
pubmed:abstractText
Typically, economic evaluation compares the costs and benefits of two or more interventions and seeks to identify the single superior option on the basis of relative cost-effectiveness. It is then anticipated that all patients will receive the more or most cost-effective option. This 'all or nothing' approach can be departed from when sub-groups of patient exist, defined on the basis of clinical or demographic characteristics which are considered to influence benefit, for whom an option is cost-effective whilst not being so for the population of patients as a whole. However, patients' preferences concerning the different process characteristics and outcomes of an intervention will also influence the benefit they derive from health care. This paper explores the concept of preference-based sub-group analysis in economic evaluation to assess the potential cost-effectiveness of using patients' preferences to determine treatment allocation. The clinical example used to explore these methods is the comparison of abdominal hysterectomy (AH) and transcervical resection of the endometrial (TCRE) for the treatment of menorrhagia.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Mar
pubmed:issn
1057-9230
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
7
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
129-42
pubmed:dateRevised
2006-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1998
pubmed:articleTitle
The cost-effectiveness of preference-based treatment allocation: the case of hysterectomy versus endometrial resection in the treatment of menorrhagia.
pubmed:affiliation
Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK. mjs23@york.ac.uk
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't