Details about Nancy Devlin

Access statistics for papers by Nancy Devlin.

Last updated 2022-11-06. Update your information in the RePEc Author Service.

Short-id: pde347

Working Papers

2016

1. “New Age” Decision Making in HTA: Is It Applicable in Asia?
   Briefing, Office of Health Economics

2013

2. Methods for the estimation of the NICE cost effectiveness threshold
   Working Papers, Centre for Health Economics, University of York View citations (49)
3. The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on NICE decisions
   Working Papers, Centre for Health Economics, University of York View citations (8)
   See also Journal Article The Influence of Cost‐Effectiveness and Other Factors on Nice Decisions, Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (2015) View citations (21) (2015)

2012

4. Analysing Hospital Variation in Health Outcome at the Level of EQ-5D Dimensions
   Working Papers, Centre for Health Economics, University of York View citations (1)
5. Time to tweak the TTO. But how?
   MPRA Paper, University Library of Munich, Germany View citations (1)

2011

6. Truly inefficient or providing better quality of care? Analysing the relationship between riskadjusted hospital costs and patients’ health outcomes
   Working Papers, Centre for Health Economics, University of York View citations (5)
   See also Journal Article TRULY INEFFICIENT OR PROVIDING BETTER QUALITY OF CARE? ANALYSING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RISK‐ADJUSTED HOSPITAL COSTS AND PATIENTS' HEALTH OUTCOMES, Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (2013) View citations (18) (2013)

2000

7. Allocating Vote: Health — ‘Needs Assessment’ and an Economics-Based Approach
   Treasury Working Paper Series, New Zealand Treasury
8. The health state preferences and logistical inconsistencies of New Zealanders: a tale of two tariffs
   Working Papers, Centre for Health Economics, University of York View citations (6)

Journal Articles

2022

1. A Comparison of PROPr and EQ-5D-5L Value Sets
   PharmacoEconomics, 2022, 40, (3), 297-307 View citations (1)
2. How are Child-Specific Utility Instruments Used in Decision Making in Australia? A Review of Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee Public Summary Documents
   PharmacoEconomics, 2022, 40, (2), 157-182
3. Preference Elicitation Techniques Used in Valuing Children’s Health-Related Quality-of-Life: A Systematic Review
   PharmacoEconomics, 2022, 40, (7), 663-698 View citations (2)
4. Supply-Side Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: Questions for Evidence-Based Policy
   Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2022, 20, (5), 651-667 View citations (1)
5. Systematic Review of Conceptual, Age, Measurement and Valuation Considerations for Generic Multidimensional Childhood Patient-Reported Outcome Measures
   PharmacoEconomics, 2022, 40, (4), 379-431 View citations (5)
   Also in PharmacoEconomics, 2022, 40, (4), 477-478 (2022) View citations (5)

2021

6. Allocating Public Spending Efficiently: Is There a Need for a Better Mechanism to Inform Decisions in the UK and Elsewhere?
   Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2021, 19, (5), 635-644 View citations (3)
7. EQ-5D-5L Health-State Values for the Mexican Population
   Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2021, 19, (6), 905-914 View citations (1)
8. Giving a Voice to Marginalised Groups for Health Care Decision Making
   The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2021, 14, (1), 5-10
9. Population norms for quality adjusted life years for the United States of America, China, the United Kingdom and Australia
   Health Economics, 2021, 30, (8), 1950-1977 View citations (2)
10. Valuing EQ-5D-Y-3L Health States Using a Discrete Choice Experiment: Do Adult and Adolescent Preferences Differ?
    Medical Decision Making, 2021, 41, (5), 584-596 View citations (3)
11. What is the best approach to adopt for identifying the domains for a new measure of health, social care and carer-related quality of life to measure quality-adjusted life years? Application to the development of the EQ-HWB?
    The European Journal of Health Economics, 2021, 22, (7), 1067-1081 View citations (3)

2020

12. A new tool for creating personal and social EQ-5D-5L value sets, including valuing ‘dead’
    Social Science & Medicine, 2020, 246, (C) View citations (7)
13. An exploration of methods for obtaining 0 = dead anchors for latent scale EQ-5D-Y values
    The European Journal of Health Economics, 2020, 21, (7), 1091-1103 View citations (5)
14. Do people with private health insurance attach a higher value to health than those without insurance? Results from an EQ-5D-5 L valuation study in Ireland
    Health Policy, 2020, 124, (6), 639-646 View citations (1)
15. International Valuation Protocol for the EQ-5D-Y-3L
    PharmacoEconomics, 2020, 38, (7), 653-663 View citations (7)
16. Review of Valuation Methods of Preference-Based Measures of Health for Economic Evaluation in Child and Adolescent Populations: Where are We Now and Where are We Going?
    PharmacoEconomics, 2020, 38, (4), 325-340 View citations (13)
17. The impact of price transparency on consumers and providers: A scoping review
    Health Policy, 2020, 124, (8), 819-825 View citations (8)

2019

18. A new method for valuing health: directly eliciting personal utility functions
    The European Journal of Health Economics, 2019, 20, (2), 257-270 View citations (11)
19. All Male Panels and Other Diversity Considerations for ISPOR
    PharmacoEconomics - Open, 2019, 3, (3), 423-426
20. Impact of mapped EQ-5D utilities on cost-effectiveness analysis: in the case of dialysis treatments
    The European Journal of Health Economics, 2019, 20, (1), 99-105 View citations (1)

2018

21. 3L, 5L, What the L? A NICE Conundrum
    PharmacoEconomics, 2018, 36, (6), 637-640 View citations (2)
    Also in PharmacoEconomics, 2018, 36, (6), 729-729 (2018) View citations (2)
22. Applying a Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Approach to Elicit Stakeholders’ Preferences in Italy: The Case of Obinutuzumab for Rituximab-Refractory Indolent Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (iNHL)
    PharmacoEconomics - Open, 2018, 2, (2), 153-163 View citations (1)
23. Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L Value Sets
    PharmacoEconomics, 2018, 36, (6), 699-713 View citations (7)
    Also in PharmacoEconomics, 2018, 36, (6), 727-727 (2018) View citations (1)
24. New methods for modelling EQ‐5D‐5L value sets: An application to English data
    Health Economics, 2018, 27, (1), 23-38 View citations (12)
25. Utility Values for Health States in Ireland: A Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L
    PharmacoEconomics, 2018, 36, (11), 1345-1353 View citations (9)
26. Valuing EQ-5D-5L health states ‘in context’ using a discrete choice experiment
    The European Journal of Health Economics, 2018, 19, (4), 595-605 View citations (3)
27. Valuing health‐related quality of life: An EQ‐5D‐5L value set for England
    Health Economics, 2018, 27, (1), 7-22 View citations (35)

2017

28. A Review of NICE Methods and Processes Across Health Technology Assessment Programmes: Why the Differences and What is the Impact?
    Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2017, 15, (4), 469-477 View citations (4)
29. Assessing Preference-Based Outcome Measures for Overactive Bladder: An Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Data from the BESIDE Clinical Trial
    The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2017, 10, (6), 677-686
30. EQ-5D and the EuroQol Group: Past, Present and Future
    Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2017, 15, (2), 127-137 View citations (45)
31. 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, 2017, 18, (8), 967-977 View citations (2)

2016

32. What Determines the Shape of an EQ-5D Index Distribution?
    Medical Decision Making, 2016, 36, (8), 941-951 View citations (2)

2015

33. A Checklist for Reporting Valuation Studies of Multi-Attribute Utility-Based Instruments (CREATE)
    PharmacoEconomics, 2015, 33, (8), 867-877 View citations (8)
34. INTER‐PROVIDER COMPARISON OF PATIENT‐REPORTED OUTCOMES: DEVELOPING AN ADJUSTMENT TO ACCOUNT FOR DIFFERENCES IN PATIENT CASE MIX
    Health Economics, 2015, 24, (1), 41-54 View citations (2)
35. Local health care expenditure plans and their opportunity costs
    Health Policy, 2015, 119, (9), 1237-1244 View citations (6)
36. The Influence of Cost‐Effectiveness and Other Factors on Nice Decisions
    Health Economics, 2015, 24, (10), 1256-1271 View citations (21)
    See also Working Paper The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on NICE decisions, Working Papers (2013) View citations (8) (2013)

2013

37. A COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE VARIANTS OF THE LEAD AND LAG TIME TTO
    Health Economics, 2013, 22, (5), 517-532 View citations (27)
38. Hospital Variation in Patient-Reported Outcomes at the Level of EQ-5D Dimensions
    Medical Decision Making, 2013, 33, (6), 804-818 View citations (8)
39. Lead versus lag-time trade-off variants: does it make any difference?
    The European Journal of Health Economics, 2013, 14, (1), 25-31 View citations (2)
40. One-to-one versus group setting for conducting computer-assisted TTO studies: findings from pilot studies in England and the Netherlands
    The European Journal of Health Economics, 2013, 14, (1), 65-73 View citations (5)
41. Operationalizing Value-Based Pricing of Medicines
    PharmacoEconomics, 2013, 31, (1), 1-10 View citations (15)
42. TRULY INEFFICIENT OR PROVIDING BETTER QUALITY OF CARE? ANALYSING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RISK‐ADJUSTED HOSPITAL COSTS AND PATIENTS' HEALTH OUTCOMES
    Health Economics, 2013, 22, (8), 931-947 View citations (18)
    See also Working Paper Truly inefficient or providing better quality of care? Analysing the relationship between riskadjusted hospital costs and patients’ health outcomes, Working Papers (2011) View citations (5) (2011)
43. The development of new research methods for the valuation of EQ-5D-5L
    The European Journal of Health Economics, 2013, 14, (1), 1-3 View citations (12)
44. The effects of lead time and visual aids in TTO valuation: a study of the EQ-VT framework
    The European Journal of Health Economics, 2013, 14, (1), 15-24 View citations (4)
45. Time to tweak the TTO: results from a comparison of alternative specifications of the TTO
    The European Journal of Health Economics, 2013, 14, (1), 43-51 View citations (4)

2011

46. A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: feasibility study of the ‘lead time’ approach
    Health Economics, 2011, 20, (3), 348-361 View citations (40)

2010

47. An Analysis of NICE’s ‘Restricted’ (or ‘Optimized’) Decisions
    PharmacoEconomics, 2010, 28, (11), 987-993 View citations (2)
48. Patient‐reported outcome measures in the NHS: new methods for analysing and reporting EQ‐5D data
    Health Economics, 2010, 19, (8), 886-905 View citations (11)
49. Protocols for Time Tradeoff Valuations of Health States Worse than Dead: A Literature Review
    Medical Decision Making, 2010, 30, (5), 610-619 View citations (19)
50. Statistical Analysis of EQ-5D Profiles: Does the Use of Value Sets Bias Inference?
    Medical Decision Making, 2010, 30, (5), 556-565 View citations (7)

2009

51. A note on the nature of utility in time and health and implications for cost utility analysis
    Social Science & Medicine, 2009, 68, (2), 362-367 View citations (8)
52. Identifying the impact of government targets on waiting times in the NHS
    Health Care Management Science, 2009, 12, (1), 1-10 View citations (32)
53. Searching for cost effectiveness thresholds in the NHS
    Health Policy, 2009, 91, (3), 239-245 View citations (30)

2007

54. ‘Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in CUA? Yes there is a case, but what does it add to ordinal data?’ a rejoinder
    Health Economics, 2007, 16, (6), 649-651

2006

55. "Yes", "No" or "Yes, but"? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making
    Health Policy, 2006, 77, (3), 352-367 View citations (11)
56. A theoretical framework for TTO valuations of health
    Health Economics, 2006, 15, (10), 1149-1154 View citations (10)
57. Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost‐utility analysis?
    Health Economics, 2006, 15, (7), 653-664 View citations (36)

2005

58. A ‘new and improved’ EQ-5D valuation questionnaire?
    The European Journal of Health Economics, 2005, 6, (1), 73-82 View citations (3)
59. Continuity through change: The rhetoric and reality of health reform in New Zealand
    Social Science & Medicine, 2005, 61, (2), 253-262 View citations (9)

2004

60. Does NICE have a cost‐effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis
    Health Economics, 2004, 13, (5), 437-452 View citations (117)
61. Getting Health Economics into Practice, Edited by David Kernick. Radcliffe Medical Press, Oxford, 2002. No. of pages: 358. ISBN 1‐85775‐575‐8
    Health Economics, 2004, 13, (5), 499-500

2003

62. Logical inconsistencies in survey respondents' health state valuations ‐ a methodological challenge for estimating social tariffs
    Health Economics, 2003, 12, (7), 529-544 View citations (25)

2002

63. The Purchasing of Health Care by Primary Care Organisations. An evaluation and Guide to Future Policy, by N. Mays, S. Wyke, G. Malbon, N. Goodwin. Open University Press, Buckingham and Philadelphia, 2001. No. of pages: 320. ISBN 0‐335‐20900‐9
    Health Economics, 2002, 11, (6), 567-568

2001

64. Health care spending and economic output: Granger causality
    Applied Economics Letters, 2001, 8, (8), 561-564 View citations (57)

1999

65. The cost-effectiveness of introducing a varicella vaccine to the New Zealand immunisation schedule
    Social Science & Medicine, 1999, 49, (6), 763-779 View citations (4)

1996

66. The cost-effectiveness of mammography screening: evidence from a microsimulation model for New Zealand
    Health Policy, 1996, 38, (2), 101-115 View citations (8)

1995

67. Comment: Financing New Zealand’s Tertiary Education: How Much Subsidy?
    Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, 1995, 2, (2), 223-225

1994

68. The effects of denturism: New Zealand dentists' response to competition
    American Journal of Public Health, 1994, 84, (10), 1675-1677