The repeatability of three methods for measuring prospective patients' values in the context of treatment choice for end-stage renal disease.

In the context of the choice of treatment for end-stage renal disease (ESRD), three approaches to value assessment were examined for their repeatability over time within subjects. If formal decision analyses are to be used to advise patients about treatment choice, then repeatable value assessment methods, an essential component of such analyses, are needed. The methods assessed were standard gamble (SG), time trade-off (TTO), and visual analogue (VA). Sixty-six nephrology clinic patients were interviewed on two occasions, 10 days apart, by one of two interviewers. An information session was conducted 1 week before the first interview. Subjects were taught about the treatments using an information package developed expressly for the study and a video produced by a pharmaceutical company for use in this decision context. Patients differed widely in the values provided for the various treatments of ESRD, with responses that ranged across the entire scale (0 to 100). The repeatability of the three methods was poor, with the coefficients of repeatability (95% range of differences from one occasion to the next) observed as +/- 27.4 for SG, +/- 38.4 for TTO, and +/- 36.5 for VA. When subsets defined by characteristics that may have improved the repeatability were analyzed, the magnitude of the error did not vary substantially. The poor repeatability of these methods raises questions about their use for decision analyses applied to the individual context.