Skip to main content
NCBI home page
International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research logoLink to International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research
. 2010 Feb 28;19(1):18–33. doi: 10.1002/mpr.300

Valuation of health states in the US study to establish disability weights: lessons from the literature

Jürgen Rehm 1,2,3,4,✉, Ulrich Frick 5
PMCID: PMC3306052  NIHMSID: NIHMS361545  PMID: 20191661

Abstract

The metric of disability‐adjusted life years (DALYs) has become the global standard of measuring burden of disease. DALYs are comprised of years of life lost due to premature mortality and years of healthy life lost due to living with disability. In order to calculate the second part of the DALY equation, disease specific disability weights have to be established, i.e. measures for the decline of health associated with these disease states, which vary between zero for perfect health and one for death. Although these disability weights are key for estimating DALYs, there have not been many comprehensive studies with empirical determinations of them. This article describes a systematic review on the state of the art with respect to empirically determining disability weights. Based on this review, a multi‐method approach is outlined, which has also been implemented in a US study to measure burden of disease. This approach involves the use of psychometric methodology as well as economic trade‐off methods for determining the value of health states. It is conceptualized as a disaggregated approach, where the disability weight of any health state can be calculated if the attributes of this health state are known. The US study received the collaboration of experts from more than 20 institutes of the National Institutes of Health and of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. First results will be available by the end of this year. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: disability‐adjusted life years (DALYs), burden of disease, disability weight, empirical assessment, psychometrics, trade‐off methods

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (342.3 KB).

REFERENCES

  1. Abellan‐Perpinan J.M., Pinto‐Prades J.L. (1999) Health state after treatment: A reason for discrimination? Health Economics, 8, 701–707. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnesen T., Nord E. (1999) The value of DALY life: Problems with ethics and validity of disability adjusted life years. BMJ, 319, 1423–1425. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnesen T., Trommald M. (2005) Are QALYs based on time trade‐off comparable? – A systematic review of TTO methodologies. Health Economics, 14, 39–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Aronson E., Ellsworth P., Carlsmith J.M., Gonzales M. (1990) Methods of Research in Social Psychology, 2nd edition, McGraw‐Hill. [Google Scholar]
  5. Beltyukova S.A., Stone G.E., Fox C.M. (2008) Magnitude estimation and categorical rating scaling in social sciences: A theoretical and psychometric controversy. Journal of Applied Measures, 9, 151–159. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bleichrodt H., Doctor J., Stolk E. (2005) A nonparametric elicitation of the equity‐efficiency trade‐off in cost‐utility analysis. Journal of Health Economics, 24, 655–678. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bless H., Bohner G., Hild T., Schwarz N. (1992) Asking difficult questions: Task complexity increases the impact of response alternatives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 309–312. [Google Scholar]
  8. Blumenschein K., Johannesson M. (1998) An experimental test of question framing in health state utility assessment. Health Policy, 45, 187–193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Boyd N., Sutherland H., Karen Z., Heasman D., Cummings B. (1990) Whose utilities for decision analysis? Medical Decision Making, 10, 58–67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bravata D., Nelson L., Garber A., Goldstein M. (2005) Invariance and inconsistency in utility rankings. Medical Decision Making, 25, 158–167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Breslow L. (2006) Health measurement in the third era of health. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 17–19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Brooks R., EuroQoL Group (1996) EuroQoL: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37, 53–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Broome J. (2004) Weighing Lives, Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  14. Buckingham J., Birdsall J., Douglas J. (1996) Comparing three versions of the trade‐off: Time for a change? Medical Decision Making, 16, 335–347. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Buckingham J., Devlin N. (2006) A theoretical framework for TTO valuations of health. Health Economics, 15, 1149–1154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Burström K., Johannesson M., Diderichsen F. (2006) A comparison of individual and social time trade‐off values for health states in the general population. Health Policy, 76, 359–370. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Chapman G., Johnson E. (1999) Anchoring, activation and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 115–153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Damschroder L.J., Roberts T.R., Goldstein C.C., Miklosovic M.E., Ubel P.A. (2005a) Trading people versus time: What is the difference? Population Health Metrics, 3, 10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Damschroder L.J., Roberts T.R., Zikmund‐Fisher B.J., Ubel P.A. (2007) Why people refuse to make tradeoffs in person tradeoff elicitations: A matter of perspective? Medical Decision Making, 27, 266–280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Damschroder L.J., Zikmund‐Fisher B.J., Ubel P.A. (2005b) The impact of considering adaptation in health state valuation. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 267–277. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Doctor J., Bleichrodt H., Lin H.J. (2010) Health utility bias: A systematic review and meta‐analytic evaluation. Medical Decision Making, 30, 58–67, DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07312478. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Dolan P. (2000) The measurement of health‐related quality of life for use in resource allocation decisions in health care In: Handbook of Health Economics (eds Culyer A, Newhouse J.), pp. 1724–1760, Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  23. Dolan P.A., Olsen J.A. (2001) Equity in health: The importance of different health streams. Journal of Health Economics, 20, 823–834. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Dolan P., Olsen J.A., Menzel P., Richardson J. (2003) An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health. Health Economics, 12, 545–551. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Drummond M., O'Brien B., Stoddart G.L., Torrance G.W. (1997) Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  26. Etches V., Frank J., Di Ruggiero E., Manuel D. (2006) Measuring population health: A review of indicators. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 29–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. EuroQoL Group (1990) EuroQoL – a new facility for the measurement of health‐related quality of life. Health Policy, 16, 199–208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Feeny D. (2002) The utility approach to assessing population health In: Summary Measures of Population Health. Concepts, Ethics, Measurement and Applications (eds Murray CJL. et al), pp. 515–528, WHO. [Google Scholar]
  29. 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. Medical Care, 40, 113–128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Field M.J., Gold G.M. (1998) Summarizing Population Health: Directions for the Development and Application of Population Metrics, National Academy Press. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Flora D.B., Curran P.J. (2004) An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9, 466–491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Fowler F. (1995) Improving Survey Questions: Design and Evaluation, Applied Social Research Methods Series, Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  33. Frick U., Rehm J., Fichter M., Koloska R. (1988) Therapeutische Rollenorientierung und soziale Repräsentationen von stationären Alkoholismus‐Patienten. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 7, 218–226. [Google Scholar]
  34. Fried T.R., O'Leary J., Van Ness P., Fraenkel L. (2007) Inconsistency over time in the preferences of older persons with advanced illness for life‐sustaining treatment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 55, 1007–1014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Furlong W.J., Feeny D.H., Torrance G.W., Barr R.D. (2001) The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health‐related quality of life in clinical studies. Annals of Medicine, 33, 375–384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Gafni A. (1994) The Standard Gamble method: What is being measured and how it is interpreted. Health Services Research, 29, 207–224. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Gigerenzer G., Todd P.M., ABC Research Group (1999) Simple Heuristics that make us Smart, Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  38. Goldberg J. (2006) Being there is important, but getting there matters too: The role of path in the valuation process. Medical Decision Making, 26, 323–337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Green C. (2001) On the societal value of health care: What do we know about the person trade‐off technique? Health Economics, 10, 233–243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Green C., Brazier J., Deverill M. (2000) Valuing health‐related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics, 17, 151–165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Grice P.H. (1975) Logic and conversation In: Syntax and Semantics (eds Cole P, Morgan JL.), pp. 41–58, Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  42. Hammerl M. (2000) Experimental realism in social psychological research [Experimentelle realitätsnähe in der sozialpsychologischen Forschung]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 31, 143–152. [Google Scholar]
  43. Hertwig R. (1998) Psychologie, experimentelle Ökonomie und die Frage, was gutes Experimentieren ist. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 45, 2–19. [Google Scholar]
  44. Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Economica, 47, 263–261. [Google Scholar]
  45. Kahneman D., Tversky A., Slovic P. (1982) Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Klein M., Dülmer H., Ohr D., Quandt M., Rosar U. (2004) Response sets in the measurement of values: A comparison of rating and ranking procedures. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 16, 474–483. [Google Scholar]
  47. Lancaster T. (1971) Consumer Demand: A New Approach, Columbia University Press. [Google Scholar]
  48. Lancsar E., Louviere J., Flynn T. (2007) Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments. Social Science Medicine, 64, 1738–1753. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Lenert L., Cher D., Goldstein M., Bergen M., Garber A. (1998) The effect of search procedures on utility elicitations. Medical Decision Making, 18, 76–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. McDowell I. (2006) Measuring Health – a Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires, Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  51. McDowell I., Spasoff R., Kristjansson B. (2005) On the classification of population health measurements. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 388–393. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. McIntosh C.N., Connor Gorber S., Bernier J., Berthelot J.M. (2007) Eliciting Canadian population preferences for health states using the Classification and Measurement System of Functional Health (CLAMES). Chronic Diseases in Canada, 28, 29–41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. McKenna M., Marks J. (2002) Commentary on the uses of summary measures of population health In: Summary Measures of Population Health. Concepts, Ethics, Measurement and Applications (eds Murray CJL. et al), pp. 67–74, WHO. [Google Scholar]
  54. McKie J., Richardson J. (2003) The rule of rescue. Social Science Medicine, 56, 2407–2419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. McNamee P. (2007) What difference does it make? The calculation of QALY gains from health profiles using patient and general population values. Healthy Policy, 84, 321–331. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Morimoto T., Fukui T. (2002) Utilities measured by rating scale, time trade‐off, and standard gamble: Review and reference for health care professionals. Journal of Epidemiology, 12, 160–178. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Mortimer D., Segal L. (2008) Comparing the incomparable? A systematic review of competing techniques for converting descriptive measures of health status into QUALY‐weights. Medical Decision Making, 28, 66–89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Murray C., Lopez A. (2000) Progress and directions in refining the global burden of disease approach: A response to Williams. Health Economics, 9, 69–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Murray C., Lopez A. (1996) The Global Burden of Disease, Harvard School of Public Health (on behalf of the WHO and World Bank), Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  60. Murray C., Salomon J., Mathers C. (2000) A critical examination of summary measures for population health. Bulletin of the WHO, 78, 981–994. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Murray C., Salomon J., Mathers C., Lopez A. (2002) Summary Measures of Population Health: Concepts, Ethics, Measurement and Applications, WHO. [Google Scholar]
  62. Murray C.J.L. (1994) Quantifying the burden of disease: The technical basis for disability‐adjusted life years. Bulletin of the WHO, 72, 429–445. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Murray C.J.L. (1996) Rethinking DALYs In: The Global Burden of Disease: A Comprehensive Assessment of Mortality and Disability from Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors in 1990 and Projected to 2020 (eds Murray CJL, Lopez A.), pp. 1–98, Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  64. Muthen B. (2006) Should substance use disorders be considered as categorical or dimensional? Addiction, 101, 6–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Nord E. (1993a) The relevance of health state after treatment in prioritising between different patients. Journal of Medical Ethics, 19, 37–42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Nord E. (1993b) The trade‐off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost‐value analysis of health care. Health Policy, 24, 227–238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Nord E. (2004) Concerns for the worse off: Fair innings versus severity. Social Science Medicine, 60, 257–263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Nord E. (2005) Severity of illness and priority setting: Worrisome lack of discussion of surprising finding. Journal of Health Economics, 25, 170–172. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Olsen J., Smith R. (2001) Theory versus practice: A review of ‘willingness‐to‐pay’ in health and health care. Health Economics, 10, 39–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Parkin D., Devlin N. (2006) Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost‐utility analysis? Health Economics, 15, 653–664. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Pinto Prades J.L. (1997) Is the person trade‐off a valid method for allocating health care resources? Health Economics, 6, 71–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Rabin R., de Charro F. (2001) EQ‐5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQoL group. Annals of Medicine, 33, 337–343. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Rasiel E., Weinfurt K., Schulman K. (2005) Can prospect theory explain risk‐seeking behavior by terminally ill patients? Medical Decision Making, 25, 609–613. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Rehm J., Strack F. (1994) Kontrolltechniken In: Methodologische Grundlagen der Psychologie (eds Hermann T, Tack W.), pp. 508–555, Hogrefe. [Google Scholar]
  75. Revicki D., Kaplan R. (1993) Relationship between psychometric and utility‐based approaches to the measurement of health‐related quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 2, 477–487. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Richards M., Wierzbicki M. (1990) Anchoring errors in clinical‐like judgments. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 46, 358–365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Richardson J., Nord E. (1997) The importance of perspective in the measurement of Quality‐adjusted Life Years. Medical Decision Making, 17, 33–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Ryan M., Scott D.A., Reeves C., Bate A., van Teijlingen E.R., Russell E.M., Napper M., Robb C.M. (2001) Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: A systematic review of techniques. Health Technology Assessment, 5, 1–186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Sackett D., Torrance G. (1978) The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 7, 347–358. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Salomon J. (2003) Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: A model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data. Population Health Metrics, 1, 12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Schwappach D. (2002) The equivalence of numbers: The social value of avoiding health decline: An experimental web‐based study. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 2, 3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Schwappach D. (2005) Are preferences for equity a matter of perspective? Medical Decision Making, 25, 449–459. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Schwarz N. (1996) Cognition and Communication: Judgmental Biases, Research Methods and the Logic of Conversation, Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  84. Schwarz N., Clore G. (2003) Mood as information: 20 years later. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 296–303. [Google Scholar]
  85. Schwarz N., Hippler H.J. (1987) What response scales may tell your respondents: Informative functions of response alternatives In: Social Information Processing and Survey Methodology (eds Hippler HJ, Schwarz N, Sudman S.), pp. 163–178, Springer. [Google Scholar]
  86. Schwarz N., Sudman S. (1995) Answering Questions: Methodology for Determining Cognitive and Communicative Processes in Survey Research, Jossey‐Bass. [Google Scholar]
  87. Schwarzinger M., Lanoe J., Nord E., Durand‐Zaleski I. (2004) Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade‐off responses. Health Economics, 13, 171–181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Sherbourne C.D., Keeler E., Unützer J., Lenert L., Wells K.B. (1999) Relationship between age and patients' current health state preferences. Gerentologist, 39, 271–278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Spencer A. (2003) A test of the QALY model when health varies over time. Social Science Medicine, 57, 1697–1706. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Stalmeier P.F., Lamers L.M., Busschbach J.J., Krabbe P.F. (2007) On the assessment of preferences for health and duration. Maximal endurable time and better than dead preferences. Medical Care, 45, 835–841. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Stiggelbout A., de Vogel‐Voogt E. (2008) Health state utilities: A framework for studying the gap between the imagined and the real. Value Health, 11, 76–87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Stolk E., Pickee S., Ament A., Busschbach J. (2005) Equity in health care prioritisation: An empirical inquiry into social value. Health Policy, 74, 343–355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Stouthard M., Essink‐Bot M.L., Bonsel G.J. (1997) Disability Weights for Diseases in the Netherlands, Erasmus University Rotterdam. [Google Scholar]
  94. Sudman S., Bradburn N., Schwarz N. (1996) Thinking about Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology, Jossey‐Bass. [Google Scholar]
  95. Thurstone L.L. (1927) A law of comparative judgement. Psychological Review, 34, 273–286. [Google Scholar]
  96. Tsuchiya A. (1999) The time trade‐off method from the societal perspective. Quality of Life Research, 8, 578. [Google Scholar]
  97. Tsuchiya A.J., Brazier J., Roberts J. (2006) Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ‐5D and the SF‐6D value sets. Journal of Health Economics, 25, 334–346. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Ubel P., Richardson J., Baron J. (2002) Exploring the role of order effects in person trade‐off elicitations. Health Policy, 61, 189–199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. Ubel P.A., Richardson J., Menzel P. (2000) Societal value, the person trade‐off, and the dilemma of whose values to measure for cost‐effectiveness analysis. Health Economics, 9, 127–136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Üstün T.B., Rehm J., Chatterji S., Saxena S., Trotter R., Room R., Bickenbach J. (1999a) Multiple‐informant ranking of the disabling effects of different health conditions in 14 countries. Lancet, 354, 111–115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Üstün T.B., Saxena S., Rehm J., Bickenbach J. (1999b) Are disability weights universal? WHO/NIH Joint Project CAR Study Group. Lancet, 354, 1306. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Ubel P.A., Spranca M.D., Dekay M.L., Hershey J.C., Asch D.A. (1998) Public preferences for prevention versus cure: What if an ounce of prevention is worth only an ounce of cure? Medical Decision Making, 18, 141–148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  103. van der Maas P. (2003) How summary measures of population health are affecting health agendas. Bulletin of the WHO, 81, 314. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. van Nooten F., Brouwer W. (2004) The influence of subjective expectations about length and quality of life on time trade‐off answers. Health Economics, 13, 819–823. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. van Osch S., Stiggelbout A. (2005) Understanding VAS valuations: Qualitative data on the cognitive process. Quality of Life Research, 14, 2171–2175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  106. van Osch S., Stiggelbout A. (2008) The construction of standard gamble utilities. Health Economics, 17, 31–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  107. Wänke M., Schwarz N., Noelle‐Neumann E. (1995) Asking comparative questions: The impact of the direction of comparison. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59, 347–372. [Google Scholar]
  108. Ware J., Sherbourne C. (1992) The MOS 36‐item short form health survey (SF‐36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–483. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. Wiseman V., Mooney G., Berry G., Tang K. (2003) Involving the general public in priority setting: Experiences from Australia. Social Science Medicine, 56, 1001–1012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. Wolfson M. (2003) On the policy implications of summary measures of health status In: To Develop a Research Agenda and Research Resources for Health Status Assessment and Summary Health Measures (eds National Center for Health Statistics ), pp. 151–189, National Center for Health Statistics; http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/otheract/IAWG/NCHS_Report.pdf [Google Scholar]
  111. Woloshin S., Schwartz L.M., Moncur M., Gabriel S., Tosteson A.N. (2001) Assessing values for health: Numeracy matters. Medical Decision Making, 21, 382–390. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  112. World Bank (1993) World Development Report 1993 – Investing in Health, World Bank/Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  113. World Health Organization (WHO) (2008) World Health Survey, WHO. [Google Scholar]
  114. Zikmund‐Fisher B.J., Smith D.M., Ubel P.A., Fagerlin A. (2007) Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: Effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communication and utility elicitations. Medical Decision Making, 27, 663–671. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES