Boyd CM, Darer J., Boult C., Fried LP, Boult L., Wu AWClinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: implications for pay for performance. JAMA. 2005;294:716-24.
2.
Department of Health and Human Services.Comparative effectiveness research funding. 2010. Available from: URL: http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/cer/index.html .
3.
Anderson G., Horvath J.Chronic Conditions: Making the Case for Ongoing Care. Princeton (NJ): Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Partnership for Solutions; 2002.
4.
Hu B., Fu AZPredicting utility for joint health states: a general framework and a new nonparametric estimator. Med Decis Making.2010;30(5):E29-39.
5.
McIntosh CNUtility scores for comorbid conditions: methodological issues and advances . In: Preedy VR, Watson RR, eds. Handbook of Disease Burdens and Quality of Life Measures. New York: Springer; 2010. pp. 360-378.
6.
Dale W., Basu A., Elstein A., Meltzer D.Predicting utility ratings for joint health states from single health states in prostate cancer: empirical testing of 3 alternative theories. Med Decis Making. 2008;28:102-12.
7.
Fu AZ, Kattan MWUtilities should not be multiplied: evidence from the preferencebased scores in the United States. Med Care. 2008;46:984-90.
8.
Basu A., Dale W., Elstein A., Meltzer D.A time tradeoff method for eliciting partner’s quality of life due to patient’s health states in prostate cancer. Med Decis Making. 2010;30:355-65.
9.
Lenert LA, Sturley A., Rupnow M.Toward improved methods for measurement of utility: automated repair of errors in elicitations. Med Decis Making. 2003;23:67-75.
10.
Dale W., Bilir P., Basu A., Hemmerich J., Elstein A., Meltzer D.The prevalence, correlates, and impact of logically inconsistent preferences in utility assessments for joint health states in prostate cancer. Med Care. 2010. (In press)
