SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • 1
    Korfage IJ, Essink-Bot ML, Borsboom GJ et al. Five-year follow-up of health-related quality of life after primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. Int J Cancer 2005; 116: 2916
  • 2
    Bacon CG, Giovannucci E, Testa M, Kawachi I. The impact of cancer treatment on quality of life outcomes for patients with localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2001; 166: 180410
  • 3
    Talcott JA, Manola J, Clark JA et al. Time course and predictors of symptoms after primary prostate cancer therapy. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 397986
  • 4
    Madalinska JB, Essink-Bot ML, De Koning HJ, Kirkels WJ, Van Der Maas PJ, Schroder FH. Health-related quality-of-life effects of radical prostatectomy and primary radiotherapy for screen-detected or clinically diagnosed localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 161928
  • 5
    Potosky AL, Davis WW, Hoffman RM et al. Five-year outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96: 135867
  • 6
    Ware JE, Kosinski M. Interpreting SF-36 summary health measures: a response. Qual Life Res 2001; 10: 40513
  • 7
    Potosky AL, Legler J, Albertsen PC et al. Health outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92: 158292
  • 8
    Clark JA, Rieker P, Propert KJ, Talcott JA. Changes in quality of life following treatment for early prostate cancer. Urology 1999; 53: 1618
  • 9
    Staff I, Salner A, Bohannon R, Panatieri P, Maljanian R. Disease-specific symptoms and general quality of life of patients with prostate carcinoma before and after primary three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Cancer 2003; 98: 233543
  • 10
    Lepore SJ, Eton DT. Response shifts in prostate cancer patients: an evaluation of suppressor and buffer models. In SchwartzCE, SprangersMAG eds, Adaptation to Changing Health, Response Shift in Quality-of-Life Research. Washington DC: American Psychological Association, 2000
  • 11
    Schapira MM, Lawrence WF, Katz DA, McAuliffe TL, Nattinger AB. Effect of treatment on quality of life among men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Med Care 2001; 39: 24353
  • 12
    Galbraith ME, Ramirez JM, Pedro LW. Quality of life, health outcomes, and identity for patients with prostate cancer in five different treatment groups. Oncol Nurs Forum 2001; 28: 55160
  • 13
    Lee WR, Hall MC, McQuellon RP, Case LD, McCullough DL. A prospective quality-of-life study in men with clinically localized prostate carcinoma treated with radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, or interstitial brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 51: 61423
  • 14
    Talcott JA, Rieker P, Clark JA et al. Patient-reported symptoms after primary therapy for early prostate cancer: results of a prospective cohort study. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 27583
  • 15
    Korfage IJ, Hak T, De Koning HJ, Essink-Bot ML. Patients’ perceptions of the side-effects of prostate cancer treatment – a qualitative interview study. Soc Sci Med 2006; 63: 9119
  • 16
    Schwartz C, Sprangers M eds. Adaptation to Changing Health, Response Shift in Quality-of-Life Research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2000
  • 17
    Elstein AS, Chapman GB, Chmiel JS et al. Agreement between prostate cancer patients and their clinicians about utilities and attribute importance. Health Expect 2004; 7: 11525
  • 18
    Baron J, Asch DA, Fagerlin A et al. Effect of assessment method on the discrepancy between judgments of health disorders people have and do not have: a web study. Med Decis Making 2003; 23: 42234
  • 19
    Blanker MH, Driessen LF, Bosch JL et al. Health status and its correlates among Dutch community-dwelling older men with and without lower urogenital tract dysfunction. Eur Urol 2002; 41: 6027
  • 20
    Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35: 1095108
  • 21
    Essink-Bot ML, Stuifbergen MC, Meerding WJ, Looman CW, Bonsel GJ. Time trade-off valuations of health states: no effect of respondent age, but how about individual response patterns? 2006; in press
  • 22
    Chapman GB, Elstein AS, Kuzel TM et al. Prostate cancer patients’ utilities for health states: how it looks depends on where you stand. Med Decis Making 1998; 18: 27886
  • 23
    Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Academic Press, 1977
  • 24
    Sackett DL, Torrance GW. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chronic Dis 1978; 31: 697704
  • 25
    Boyd NF, Sutherland HJ, Heasman KZ, Tritchler DL, Cummings BJ. Whose utilities for decision analysis? Med Decis Making 1990; 10: 5867
  • 26
    Stewart ST, Lenert L, Bhatnagar V, Kaplan RM. Utilities for prostate cancer health states in men aged 60 and older. Med Care 2005; 43: 34755
  • 27
    De Wit GA, Busschbach JJ, De Charro FT. Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count? Health Econ 2000; 9: 10926
  • 28
    Smith DS, Krygiel J, Nease RF Jr, Sumner W 2nd, Catalona WJ. Patient preferences for outcomes associated with surgical management of prostate cancer. J Urol 2002; 167: 211722
  • 29
    Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Jepson C. Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Qual Life Res 2003; 12: 599607
  • 30
    Gilbert DT, Pinel EC, Wilson TD, Blumberg SJ, Wheatley TP. Immune neglect: a source of durability bias in affective forecasting. J Pers Soc Psychol 1998; 75: 61738
  • 31
    Dolan P, Sutton M. Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade- off values. Soc Sci Med 1997; 44: 151930
  • 32
    Krabbe PF, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ. The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45: 164152
  • 33
    Stiggelbout AM, Eijkemans MJ, Kiebert GM, Kievit J, Leer JW, De Haes HJ. The ‘utility’ of the visual analog scale in medical decision making and technology assessment. Is it an alternative to the time trade-off? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12: 2918