Top

Quality of Life Research

Published in:

Open Access 07-04-2023 | Review

Use of the visual analogue scale for health state valuation: a scoping review

Authors: Mimmi Åström, Zin Min Thet Lwin, Fitsum Sebsibe Teni, Kristina Burström, Jenny Berg

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 10/2023

Abstract

Objectives

The visual analogue scale (VAS) has been used in the context of health and healthcare for various purposes, for example, to measure pain and to provide a single-index measure of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This scoping review aims to describe how the VAS has been used for health state valuation in the published literature.

Methods

The search was carried out in Medline, Web of Science and PsycInfo. The findings of the included articles were tabulated and presented descriptively using frequencies and proportions.

Results

The database search yielded 4856 unique articles, out of these, 308 were included. In 83% of the articles, the main purpose for using a VAS was to value health states. The two most common perspectives when valuing health states with a VAS were hypothetical (44%) and own health (34%). Some (n = 14) articles used the VAS in the context of economic evaluations, including calculating quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A large variation in the design of the VAS was found, including the description of the lower and upper anchors. Advantages and disadvantages with using a VAS were mentioned in 14% of the included articles.

Conclusion

The VAS has been a common method for valuing health states, both as a stand-alone method and in combination with other valuation methods. Despite its widespread use, the design of the VAS has been inconsistent which makes comparison of results across studies challenging. Further research on the role of using the VAS in economic evaluations is warranted.

Available only for authorised users

Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Salomon, J. (2007). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford University Press.

Morris, S., Delvin, N., Parkin, D., & Spencer, A. (2012). Economic analysis in health care. Wiley.

Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W. (2015). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Dolan, P., & Sutton, M. (1997). Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values. Social Science and Medicine, 44(10), 1519–1530. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00271-7CrossRefPubMed

Torrance, G. W., Feeny, D., & Furlong, W. (2001). Visual analog scales: Do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Society for Medical Decision Making, 21(4), 329–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X0102100408CrossRef

Stiggelbout, A. M., Eijkemans, M. J. C., Kiebert, G. M., Kievit, J., Leer, J. W. H., & de Haes, H. J. C. J. M. (1996). The “utility” of the visual analog scale in medical decision making and technology assessment. Is it an alternative to the time trade-off? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 12(2), 291–298. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462300009648

Stevens, K. J., McCabe, C. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2006). Mapping between visual analogue scale and standard gamble data; results from the UK Health Utilities Index 2 valuation survey. Health Economics, 15(5), 527–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/HEC.1076CrossRefPubMed

Åström, M., Krig, S., Ryding, S., Cleland, N., Rolfson, O., & Burström, K. (2020). EQ-5D-Y-5L as a patient-reported outcome measure in psychiatric inpatient care for children and adolescents—A cross-sectional study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 164. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01366-4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Boye, K. S., Matza, L. S., Feeny, D. H., Johnston, J. A., Bowman, L., & Jordan, J. B. (2014). Challenges to time trade-off utility assessment methods: When should you consider alternative approaches? Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 14(3), 437–450. https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.2014.912562CrossRefPubMed

10.

Gafni, A. (1994). The standard gamble method: What is being measured and how it is interpreted. Health Services Research, 29(2), 207–224.PubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., et al. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850CrossRefPubMed

12.

Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan—A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 210.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Arakawa, I., Momoeda, M., Osuga, Y., Ota, I., & Koga, K. (2018). Cost-effectiveness of the recommended medical intervention for the treatment of dysmenorrhea and endometriosis in Japan. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 16(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-018-0097-8CrossRef

14.

Seidl, H., Hunger, M., Leidl, R., Meisinger, C., Wende, R., Kuch, B., & Holle, R. (2015). Cost-effectiveness of nurse-based case management versus usual care for elderly patients with myocardial infarction: Results from the KORINNA study. The European Journal of Health Economics, 16(6), 671–681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-014-0623-3CrossRefPubMed

15.

Ock, M., Park, J. Y., Son, W. S., Lee, H. J., Kim, S. H., & Jo, M. W. (2016). Estimation of utility weights for human papilloma virus-related health states according to disease severity. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0566-8

16.

Shmueli, A., Messika, D., Murad, H., & Freedman, L. (2008). Does greater exposure to own-health data make a difference on the visual analog scale? The European Journal of Health Economics, 9(1), 63–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-007-0040-yCrossRefPubMed

17.

Wu, X. Y., Ohinmaa, A., Johnson, J. A., & Veugelers, P. J. (2014). Assessment of children’s own health status using visual analogue scale and descriptive system of the EQ-5D-Y: Linkage between two systems. Quality of Life Research, 23(2), 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0479-5CrossRefPubMed

18.

Dillman, J. R., Carlos, R. C., Smith, E. A., Davenport, M. S., De Matos, M. V., & Adler, J. (2016). Relationship of bowel MR imaging to health-related quality of life measures in newly diagnosed pediatric small bowel Crohn disease. Radiology, 280(2), 568–575. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016151727CrossRefPubMed

19.

Moore, A. D., Clarke, A. E., Danoff, D. S., Joseph, L., Bélisle, P., Neville, C., & Fortin, P. R. (1999). Can health utility measures be used in lupus research? A comparative validation and reliability study of 4 utility indices. Journal of Rheumatology, 26(6), 1285–1290.PubMed

20.

Kim, S. H., Lee, S., & Jo, M. W. (2017). Feasibility, comparability, and reliability of the standard gamble compared with the rating scale and time trade-off techniques in Korean population. Quality of Life Research, 26(12), 3387–3397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1676-4

21.

Demeulemeester, F., De Letter, M., Miatton, M., & Santens, P. (2015). Quality of life in patients with PD and their caregiving spouses: A view from both sides. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery, 139, 24–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2015.08.027CrossRefPubMed

22.

Devlin, N., Hansen, P., Herbison, P., & Macran, S. (2005). A “new and improved” EQ-5D valuation questionnaire? Results from a pilot study. The European Journal of Health Economics, 6(1), 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-004-0263-0CrossRefPubMed

23.

Khabibullina, A., & Gerry, C. J. (2019). Valuing health states in Russia: A first feasibility study. Value in Health Regional Issues, 19, 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2019.01.005CrossRefPubMed

24.

Lundberg, L., Johannesson, M., Silverdahl, M., Hermansson, C., & Lindberg, M. (1999). Quality of life, health-state utilities and willingness to pay in patients with psoriasis and atopic eczema. British Journal of Dermatology, 141(6), 1067–1075. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2133.1999.03207.xCrossRefPubMed

25.

Md Yusof, F. A., Goh, A., & Azmi, S. (2012). Estimating an EQ-5D value set for Malaysia using time trade-off and visual analogue scale methods. Value Health, 15(1 Suppl.), S85–S90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.11.024

26.

Cleemput, I. (2010). A social preference valuations set for EQ-5D health states in Flanders, Belgium. The European Journal of Health Economics, 11(2), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-009-0167-0CrossRefPubMed

27.

Badia Llach, X., Monserrat, S., Roset, M., & Herdman, M. (1999). Feasibility, validity and test-retest reliability of scaling methods for health states: The visual analogue scale and the time trade-off. Quality of Life Research, 8(4), 303–310. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008952423122CrossRef

28.

Foster, C., Baki, J., Nikirk, S., Williams, S., Parikh, N. D., & Tapper, E. B. (2020). Comprehensive health-state utilities in contemporary patients with cirrhosis. Hepatology Communications, 4(6), 852–858. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep4.1512CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Cho, S., Kim, H., Kim, S. H., Ock, M., Oh, Y. M., & Jo, M. W. (2015). Utility estimation of hypothetical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease health states by the general population and health professionals. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0228-2CrossRef

30.

Pickard, A. S., Hung, Y. T., Lin, F. J., & Lee, T. A. (2017). Patient experience-based value sets: Are they stable? Medical Care, 55(11), 979–984. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000802CrossRefPubMed

31.

Wang, X., Zhuo, L., Ma, Y., Cai, T., Must, A., Xu, L., & Zhuo, L. (2020). Similar responses to EQ-5D-3L by two elicitation methods: Visual analogue scale and time trade-off. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 20(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01008-9CrossRef

32.

Langfitt, J. T., Vickrey, B. G., McDermott, M. P., Messing, S., Berg, A. T., Spencer, S. S., Sperling, M. R., Bazil, C. W., & Shinnar, S. (2006). Validity and responsiveness of generic preference-based HRQOL instruments in chronic epilepsy. Quality of Life Research, 15(5), 899–914. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-005-5231-3CrossRefPubMed

33.

Gudex, C., Dolan, P., Kind, P., & Williams, A. (1996). Health state valuations from the general public using the visual analogue scale. Quality of Life Research, 5(6), 521–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00439226CrossRefPubMed

34.

Zrubka, Z., Hermann, Z., Gulácsi, L., Brodszky, V., Rencz, F., & Péntek, M. (2019). Determinants of the acceptability of health problems in different ages: Exploring a new application of the EQ VAS. The European Journal of Health Economics, 20(0123456789), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-019-01060-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Lundsberg, L. S., Xu, X., Schwarz, E. B., & Gariepy, A. M. (2017). Measuring health utility in varying pregnancy contexts among a diverse cohort of pregnant women. Contraception, 96(6), 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2017.08.003CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Chapman, B. P., Franks, P., Duberstein, P. R., & Jerant, A. (2009). Differences between individual and societal health state valuations: Any link with personality? Medical Care, 47(8), 902–907. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181a8112eCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Ernstsson, O., Burström, K., Heintz, E., & Mølsted, A. H. (2020). Reporting and valuing one’s own health: A think aloud study using EQ-5D-5L, EQ VAS and a time trade-off question among patients with a chronic condition. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01641-4CrossRef

38.

Dolan, P., Torgerson, D., & Kakarlapud, T. K. (1999). Health-related quality of life of Colles fracture patients. Osteoporosis International, 9(3), 196–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980050136CrossRefPubMed

39.

Yu, Y. R., Cunningham, M. E., DeMello, A. S., Chiou, E. H., Kougias, P., Wesson, D. E., Brandt, M. L., & Lopez, M. E. (2020). Cost-effectiveness analysis of the surgical management of infants less than one year of age with feeding difficulties. Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 55(1), 187–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2019.09.076CrossRefPubMed

40.

Van Loon, Y., Stiggelbout, A. M., Hakkesteegt, M. M., Langeveld, T. P., Baatenburg de Jong, R. J., & Sjögren, E. V. (2017). Utility approach to decision-making in extended T1 and limited T2 glottic carcinoma. Journal for the Sciences and Specialties of the Head and Neck, 36(10), 1391. https://doi.org/10.1002/HEDCrossRef

41.

Suarez-Almazor, M. E., & Conner-Spady, B. (2001). Rating of arthritis health states by patients, physicians, and the general public. Implications for cost-utility analyses. The Journal of Rheumatology, 28(3), 648–656.PubMed

42.

Huber, F. L., Furian, M., Kohler, M., Latshang, T. D., Nussbaumer-Ochsner, Y., Turk, A., Schoch, O. D., Laube, I., Thurnheer, R., & Bloch, K. E. (2021). Health preference measures in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome undergoing continuous positive airway pressure therapy: Data from a randomized trial. Respiration, 100(4), 328–338. https://doi.org/10.1159/000513306CrossRefPubMed

43.

King, J. T., Tsevat, J., & Roberts, M. S. (2004). Positive association between current health and health values for hypothetical disease states. Medical Decision Making, 24(4), 367–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X04267692CrossRefPubMed

44.

Shafie, A. A., & Vasan, T. A. (2020). Multiplicative modelling of EQ-5D-3L TTO and VAS values. The European Journal of Health Economics, 21(9), 1411–1420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01233-5CrossRefPubMed

45.

Faris, C., Tessler, O., Heiser, A., Hadlock, T., & Jowett, N. (2018). Evaluation of societal health utility of facial palsy and facial reanimation. JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery, 20(6), 480–487. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2018.0866CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Wang, A. M. Q., Retrouvey, H., Krahn, M., McCabe, S. J., & Baltzer, H. L. (2020). Direct and indirect utilities of patients with mild to moderate versus severe carpal tunnel syndrome. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume), 45(8), 832–837. https://doi.org/10.1177/1753193420922791CrossRefPubMed

47.

Yong, Y. V., & Shafie, A. A. (2016). Development, feasibility, and validity of a computer-based utility assessment tool for measuring asthma-specific health utilities in Malaysia using the standard gamble method. Journal of Asthma, 53(8), 835–842. https://doi.org/10.3109/02770903.2016.1156694CrossRef

48.

Krabbe, P. F. M., Stolk, E. A., Devlin, N. J., Xie, F., Quik, E. H., & Pickard, A. S. (2017). Head-to-head comparison of health-state values derived by a probabilistic choice model and scores on a visual analogue scale. The European Journal of Health Economics, 18(8), 967–977. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-016-0841-yCrossRefPubMed

49.

Kiebert, G. M., Green, C., Murphy, C., Mitchell, J. D., O’Brien, M., Burrell, A., & Leigh, P. N. (2001). Patients’ health-related quality of life and utilities associated with different stages of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 191(1–2), 87–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-510X(01)00616-5CrossRefPubMed

50.

Harvie, H. S., Lee, D. D., Andy, U. U., Shea, J. A., & Arya, L. A. (2017). Validity of utility measures for women with pelvic organ prolapse. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 218(1), 119.e1-119.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.09.022CrossRefPubMed

51.

Harvie, H. S., Shea, J. A., Andy, U. U., Propert, K., Schwartz, J. S., & Arya, L. A. (2014). Validity of utility measures for women with urge, stress, and mixed urinary incontinence. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 210(1), 85.e1-85.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.09.025CrossRefPubMed

52.

Harvie, H. S., Arya, L. A., Saks, E. K., Sammel, M. D., Schwartz, J. S., & Shea, J. A. (2011). Utility preference score measurement in women with fecal incontinence. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 204(1), 72.e1-72.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2010.08.018CrossRefPubMed

53.

Dolan, P., & Roberts, J. (2002). To what extent can we explain time trade-off values from other information about respondents? Social Science and Medicine, 54(6), 919–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00066-1CrossRefPubMed

54.

Devlin, N. J., & Brooks, R. (2017). EQ-5D and the EuroQol group: Past, present and future. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 15(2), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-017-0310-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

55.

NICE. (2004). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

56.

Hoots, W. K., Ebbesen, L. S., Konkle, B. A., Auerswald, G. K. H., Roberts, H. R., Weatherall, J., Ferran, J. M., & Ljung, R. C. R. (2008). Secondary prophylaxis with recombinant activated factor VII improves health-related quality of life of haemophilia patients with inhibitors. Haemophilia, 14(3), 466–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2516.2008.01654CrossRefPubMed

57.

Jia, T. W., Zhou, X. N., Wang, X. H., Utzinger, J., Steinmann, P., & Wua, X. H. (2007). Assessment of the age-specific disability weight of chronic schistosomiasis japonica. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 85(6), 458–465. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.06.033035CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

58.

Shields, B. J., Palermo, T. M., Powers, J. D., Grewe, S. D., & Smith, G. A. (2003). Predictors of a child’s ability to use a visual analogue scale. Child: Care, Health and Development, 29(4), 281–290. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2214.2003.00343.xCrossRefPubMed

59.

Parkin, D., & Devlin, N. (2006). Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost-utility analysis? Health Economics, 15(7), 653–664. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1086CrossRefPubMed

60.

Devlin, N., Parkin, D., & Janssen, B. (2020). Methods for analysing and reporting EQ-5D data. Springer Nature Switzerland AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47622-9

61.

Brouwers, R. W. M., Van Der Poort, E. K. J., Kemps, H. M. C., Van Den Akker-Van Marle, M. E., & Kraal, J. J. (2021). Cost-effectiveness of cardiac telerehabilitation with relapse prevention for the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease in the Netherlands. JAMA Network Open, 4(12), 2–15.CrossRef

62.

Cheng, A. K., Rubin, H. R., Powe, N. R., Mellon, N. K., Francis, H. W., & Niparko, J. K. (2000). Cost-utility analysis of the cochlear implant in children. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(7), 850–856. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.7.850CrossRefPubMed

63.

van Loon, Y., Stiggelbout, A. M., Hakkesteegt, M. M., Langeveld, T. P. M., Jong, R. J., de Baatenburg, J., & Sjögren, E. V. (2017). Utility approach to decision-making in extended T1 and limited T2 glottic carcinoma. Journal of the Sciences and Specialities of the Head and Neck, 36(10), 1391. https://doi.org/10.1002/HED

64.

Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., Denton, M., & Boyle, M. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care, 40(2), 113–128. Accessed February 8, 2022. https://journals.lww.com/lww-medicalcare/Abstract/2002/02000/Multiattribute_and_Single_Attribute_Utility.6.aspx

65.

Scott, J., & Huskisson, E. C. (1979). Vertical or horizontal visual analogue scales. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 38(6), 560. https://doi.org/10.1136/ARD.38.6.560CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

66.

Harrison, M. J., Boonen, A., Tugwell, P., & Symmons, D. P. M. (2009). Same question, different answers: a comparison of global health assessments using visual analogue scales. Quality of Life Research, 18(10), 1285–1292. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11136-009-9546-3

67.

Byrom, B., Elash, C. A., Eremenco, S., Bodart, S., Muehlhausen, W., Platko, J. V., Watson, C., & Howry, C. (2022). Measurement comparability of electronic and paper administration of visual analogue scales: A review of published studies. Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science, 56(3), 394. https://doi.org/10.1007/S43441-022-00376-2

68.

Hao, S., Heintz, E., Helgesson, G., Langenskiöld, S., Chen, J., & Burström, K. (2020). Influence of elicitation procedure and phrasing on health state valuations in experience-based time trade-off tasks among diabetes patients in China. Quality of Life Research, 29(1), 289–301.CrossRefPubMed

69.

Lugnér, A. K., & Krabbe, P. F. M. (2020). An overview of the time trade-off method: Concept, foundation, and the evaluation of distorting factors in putting a value on health. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 20(4), 331–342.CrossRefPubMed

70.

Sampson, C., Parkin, D., & Devlin, N. (2020). Drop dead: Is anchoring at ‘Dead’ a theoretical requirement in health state Valuation? OHE. Accessed February 8, 2022. https://www.ohe.org/publications/drop-dead-anchoring-‘dead’-theoretical-requirement-health-state-valuation.CrossRefPubMed

71.

Bobinac, A., Van Exel, N. J. A., Rutten, F. F. H., Brouwer, W. B. F. (2010). Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year: The individual perspective. Value Health, 13(8), 1046–1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00781.x.CrossRef

72.

Bulthuis, Y., Mohammad, S., Braakman-Jansen, L. M. A., Drossaers-Bakker, K. W., Van De Laar, M. A. F. J. (2008). Cost-effectiveness of intensive exercise therapy directly following hospital discharge in patients with arthritis: Results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. Arthritis Care & Research, 59(2), 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.23332.CrossRef

73.

Johnson, A. R., Asban, A., Granoff, M. D., et al. (2019). Is immediate lymphatic reconstruction cost-effective? Annals of Surgery, 274(6), E581–E588. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003746.CrossRef

74.

Sekigami, Y., Char, S., Mullen, C., et al. (2021). Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Lymph Node Transfer vs Lymphovenous Bypass for Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 232(6), 837–845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2021.02.013.CrossRefPubMed

75.

Sheckter, C. C., Van Vliet, M. M., Krishnan, N. M., Garner, W. L. (2014) Cost-effectiveness comparison between topical silver sulfadiazine and enclosed silver dressing for partial-thickness burn treatment. Journal of Burn Care & Research, 35(4), 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1097/BCR.0b013e3182a36916.CrossRef

76.

Shih, V., Chan, A., Xie, F., Ko, Y. (2012). Health state utility assessment for breast cancer. Value in Health Regional Issues, 1(1), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2012.03.009.CrossRefPubMed

77.

Takura, T., Kawanishi, H., Minakuchi, J., Nagake, Y., Takahashi, S. (2013). Cost-effectiveness analysis of on-line hemodiafiltration in Japan. Blood Purification, 35(SUPPL. 1), 85–89. https://doi.org/10.1159/000346358.CrossRefPubMed

78.

Wong, J. B., Ramey, D. R., Singh, G. (2001) Long-term morbidity, mortality, and economics of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatology, 44(12), 2746–2749. https://doi.org/10.1002/1529-0131(200112)44:12<2746::AIDART461>3.0.CO;2-Z.CrossRef

Title: Use of the visual analogue scale for health state valuation: a scoping review
Authors: Mimmi Åström
Zin Min Thet Lwin
Fitsum Sebsibe Teni
Kristina Burström
Jenny Berg
Publication date: 07-04-2023
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Quality of Life Research / Issue 10/2023
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03411-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Use of the visual analogue scale for health state valuation: a scoping review

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2023

Assessing micro- vs macro-costing approaches for treating appendicitis in children with appendicectomy or non-operatively

Patient-preferred outcomes in patients with vestibular schwannoma: a qualitative content analysis of symptoms, side effects and their impact on health-related quality of life

Correction to: Active and sham transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) improved quality of life in female patients with fibromyalgia

The structure of well-being: a single underlying factor with genetic and environmental influences

Correction to: Suitability of the animated activity questionnaire for use as computer adaptive test: establishing the AAQ‑CAT

Patient-reported mental health and well-being trajectories in oncology patients during radiation therapy: an exploratory retrospective cohort analysis using the Ontario Cancer Registry