Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving publication content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

Study found that it may be premature to propose any particular set of quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) weights, and, for valuing QALYs in monetary terms, particular attention needs to be given to survey design and measures of central tendency

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index > metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

R Baker, I Bateman, C Donaldson, M Jones-Lee, E Lancsar, G Loomes, H Mason, M Odejar, JL Pinto Prades, A Robinson, M Ryan, P Shackley, R Smith, R Sugden & J Wildman.

R Baker 1,2, I Bateman 3, C Donaldson 1,2,*, M Jones-Lee 4, E Lancsar 1,4, G Loomes 5, H Mason 1, M Odejar 6, JL Pinto Prades 7,8, A Robinson 9, M Ryan 6, P Shackley 10, R Smith 11, R Sugden 5, J Wildman 4

1 Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
2 Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK
3 School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
4 Newcastle University Business School, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
5 School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
6 Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
7 Department of Economics, University Pablo de Olavide, Sevilla, Spain
8 Fundación Centro de Estudios Andaluces, Sevilla, Spain
9 School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
10 School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
11 Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
* Corresponding author Email:

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation:{{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al. ' : ''}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.


If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

An error has occurred in processing the XML document