Richardson Jeff, Peacock Stuart J, Iezzi Angelo
Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3800, Australia.
Eur J Health Econ. 2009 Feb;10(1):103-9. doi: 10.1007/s10198-008-0107-4. Epub 2008 May 6.
The procedures used in cost utility analysis for eliciting quality of life weights have generally omitted any instruction concerning the level of consumption in a health state, despite the fact that some health states preclude the possibility of normal employment. This introduces ambiguity into the interpretation of quality of life (QoL) scores, and project ranking is sensitive to the subsequent treatment of consumption in the analysis. This article reports the results of a study that questioned 131 respondents to a time trade-off (TTO) interview about their assumptions concerning consumption and the amount of thought given to consumption. Results indicate that, without prompting, most assumed unchanged consumption, implying little bias in existing studies.
尽管某些健康状态使人无法正常就业，但成本效用分析中用于得出生活质量权重的程序，通常未给出任何有关健康状态下消费水平的说明。这给生活质量（QoL）分数的解释带来了模糊性，并且项目排名对分析中后续对消费的处理很敏感。本文报告了一项研究的结果，该研究对131名接受时间权衡（TTO）访谈的受访者询问了他们关于消费的假设以及对消费的思考量。结果表明，在没有提示的情况下，大多数人假设消费不变，这意味着现有研究中几乎没有偏差。
