The Relative Importance of Treatment Outcomes

Austen Clark and Matthew J. Friedman
Additional contact information
Austen Clark: Dartmouth Medical School
Matthew J. Friedman: Dartmouth Medical School, Department of Psychiatry Veterans Administration Hospital White River Junction, Vermont

Evaluation Review, 1982, vol. 6, issue 1, 79-93

Abstract: Cost-effectiveness studies require one to estimate overall program effectiveness using multiple outcome measures. However, one must first establish the relative importance of the different outcomes. Using an iterative process of group discussion, voting, and feedback of results, subjects ranked nine outcome scales in priority and assigned importance weights. Improvement in client ability to be self-supporting was judged the most important outcome, with symptom reduction second. Involvement with friends and substance abuse were judged the least important outcomes. The group achieved a high degree of consensus, as measured by convergence towards increasingly precise and distinct importance weights.

Date: 1982
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X8200600106 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:evarev:v:6:y:1982:i:1:p:79-93

DOI: 10.1177/0193841X8200600106

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Evaluation Review
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().