Applied Nursing Research
Volume 18, Issue 2 , Pages 74-76 , May 2005

Patient preferences and cost–utility analysis

  • Christine A. Elnitsky, RN, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Veterans Affairs, Health Services Research and Development Service, Washington, DC 20242, USA
    • Department of Community and Enviromental Health, College of Health Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Department of Veterans Affairs, Health Service Research and Development Service, Washington, DC 20242, USA. Tel.: +1 202 254 0199.
    • ,
  • Patricia Stone, RN, PhD

      Affiliations

    • School of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, USA

Received 26 February 2005 ,Accepted 26 February 2005.

References 

  1. Aiken LH, Clarke SP, et al. Hospital staffing, organization, and quality of care: Cross-national findings. Nursing Outlook. 2002;50(5):187–194
  2. Bell C, Chapman R, Stone PW, Sandberg E, Neumann PJ. An off-the-shelf-help list: A comprehensive catalogue of preference weights from published cost–utility analyses. Medical Decision Making. 2001;21(4):288–294
  3. Lenert L, Sturley A, et al. Trading time and risking life in HIV and HTN. San Diego, VA: San Diego Healthcare System; 2002;
  4. Needleman J, Buerhaus P, et al. Nurse-staffing levels and the quality of care in hospitals. New England Journal of Medicine. 2002;346(22):1715–1722
  5. Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, et al. Recommendations for reporting cost–effectiveness analyses. Panel on Cost–Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1996;276(16):1339–1341
  6. Stalmeier PFM, Goldstein MK, Holmes AM, Lenert L, Miyamoto J, et al. What should be reported in a methods section on utility assessment?. Medical Decision Making. 2001;21(3):200–207
  7. vonNeumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University; 1944;

☆ The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

PII: S0897-1897(05)00013-3

doi: 10.1016/j.apnr.2005.02.005

Applied Nursing Research
Volume 18, Issue 2 , Pages 74-76 , May 2005

Article Tools