Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 

About: Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research is an academic journal published by Informa. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Cost effectiveness & Medicine. It has an ISSN identifier of 1473-7167. Over the lifetime, 1776 publications have been published receiving 28387 citations. The journal is also known as: Expert review of pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research.

KIDSCREEN-52 quality-of-life measure for children and adolescents.

Abstract: This study describes the development and reports the first psychometric results of the European KIDSCREEN-52 generic health-related quality-of-life questionnaire for children and adolescents. The KIDSCREEN-52, including ten dimensions, was applied in a European survey involving 12 countries (i.e., Austria, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Hungary, The Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and the UK) and 22,110 children and adolescents aged between 8 and 18 years of age. Questionnaire development included a literature search, expert consultation, and focus group discussions with children and adolescents. After definition of dimensions and collection of items, a translation process following international translation guidelines, cognitive interviews and a pilot test were performed. Analysis regarding psychometric properties showed Cronbach-α ranged from 0.77 to 0.89. Correlation coefficients between KINDLR and KIDSCREEN-52 dimensions were high for those assessing similar constructs (r = 0.51-0.68). All KIDSCREEN-52 dimensions showed a gradient according to socioeconomic status and most dimensions showed a gradient according to psychosomatic health complaints. The first results demonstrate that the KIDSCREEN-52 questionnaire is a promising cross-cultural measure of health-related quality-of-life assessment for children and adolescents in Europe. © 2005 Future Drugs Ltd.

Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold.

Abstract: Cost-effectiveness analyses, particularly in the USA, commonly use a figure of $50,000 per life-year or quality-adjusted life-year gained as a threshold for assessing the cost-effectiveness of an intervention. The history of this practice is ill defined, although it has been linked to the end-stage renal disease kidney dialysis cost-effectiveness literature from the 1980s. The use of $50,000 as a benchmark for assessing the cost-effectiveness of an intervention first emerged in 1992 and became widely used after 1996. The appeal of the $50,000 figure appears to lie in the convenience of a round number rather than in the value of renal dialysis. Rather than arbitrary thresholds, estimates of willingness to pay and the opportunity cost of healthcare resources are needed.

Cognitive behavior therapy via the Internet: a systematic review of applications, clinical efficacy and cost–effectiveness

Abstract: Internet-based cognitive behavior therapy (ICBT) is a promising treatment that may increase availability of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for psychiatric disorders and other clinical problems. T...

A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods.

Abstract: The minimal important difference (MID) is a phrase with instant appeal in a field struggling to interpret health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes. The terminology can be confusing, with several terms differing only slightly in definition (e.g., minimal clinically important difference, clinically important difference, minimally detectable difference, the subjectively significant difference), and others that seem similar despite having quite different meanings (minimally detectable difference versus minimum detectable change). Often, nuances of definition are of little consequence in the way that these quantities are estimated and used. Four methods are commonly employed to estimate MIDs: patient rating of change (global transition items); clinical anchors; standard error of measurement; and effect size. These are described and critiqued in this article. There is no universal MID, despite the appeal of the notion. Indeed, for a particular patient-reported outcome instrument or scale, the MID is not an immutable characteristic, but may vary by population and context. At both the group and individual level, the MID may depend on the clinical context and decision at hand, the baseline from which the patient starts, and whether they are improving or deteriorating. Specific estimates of MIDs should therefore not be overinterpreted. For a given health-related quality-of-life scale, all available MID estimates (and their confidence intervals) should be considered, amalgamated into general guidelines and applied judiciously to any particular clinical or research context.

Assessing and demonstrating data saturation in qualitative inquiry supporting patient-reported outcomes research.

Abstract: In the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) field, strict regulatory requirements must be met for qualitative research that contributes to labeling claims for medicinal products. These requirements not only emphasize the importance of reaching saturation but also of providing documentary evidence that saturation has been reached. This paper reviews qualitative literature for useful definitions of the concept and for practical approaches for assessing saturation. The paper considers approaches in light of the rigorous regulatory requirements for PRO research that are used to support labeling claims for medicinal products and the wider requirements for flexibility and creativity in qualitative research in general. This assessment is facilitated by the use of examples from our past qualitative PRO studies. Based on conclusions from this assessment, we offer preliminary recommendations for future qualitative PRO studies for assessing and documenting saturation.