Developing new health status measures, whether these are targeted or generic in nature, involves a significant investment research. All could bear witness to the lengthy and difficult path that researchers have followed in producing instruments that are recognised as having demonstrable scientific pedigree. This process involves submitting material for proper public scrutiny and comment - not presenting the scientific community with a fait a compli. Usual activities as the proposed core domains of the WHO health status measure. Selecting the descriptive basis of any health status classification marks the introduction of the valuation process.
All omissions count equally and have a zero weight.
One might be disposed to be lenient about the absence of traditional forms of evidence were the political realities less troublesome. The existence of a single standard method for measuring health status could have enormous consequences outside the relatively arcane world of health systems league tables. Gone are the problems of translation, cultural adaptation, valuation and re-calibration. Clinical trialists engaged in multicentre international studies will inevitably be tempted to try out the new technology and once a critical mass of such work is in the literature it will become difficult to avoid a steamroller effect. Valuations for health states defined by a WHO descriptive system are to be based on population surveys and some evidence of this work is expected to be revealed during the coming months.