Literature DB >> 11386627

What should be reported in a methods section on utility assessment?

P F Stalmeier1, M K Goldstein, A M Holmes, L Lenert, J Miyamoto, A M Stiggelbout, G W Torrance, J Tsevat.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The measurement of utilities, or preferences, for health states may be affected by the technique used. Unfortunately, in papers reporting utilities, it is often difficult to infer how the utility measurement was carried out.
PURPOSE: To present a list of components that, when described, provide sufficient detail of the utility assessment.
METHODS: An initial list was prepared by one of the authors. A panel of 8 experts was formed to add additional components. The components were drawn from 6 clusters that focus on the design of the study, the administration procedure, the health state descriptions, the description of the utility assessment method, the description of the indifference procedure, and the use of visual aids or software programs. The list was updated and redistributed among a total of 14 experts, and the components were judged for their importance of being mentioned in a Methods section.
RESULTS: More than 40 components were generated. Ten components were identified as necessary to include even in an article not focusing on utility measurement: how utility questions were administered, how health states were described, which utility assessment method(s) was used, the response and completion rates, specification of the duration of the health states, which software program (if any) was used, the description of the worst health state (lower anchor of the scale), whether a matching or choice indifference search procedure was used, when the assessment was conducted relative to treatment, and which (if any) visual aids were used. The interjudge reliability was satisfactory (Cronbach's alpha = 0.85). DISCUSSION: The list of components important for utility papers may be used in various ways, for instance, as a checklist while writing, reviewing, or reading a Methods section or while designing experiments. Guidelines are provided for a few components.

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11386627     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0102100305

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  18 in total

1.  Discrepancies between the Dermatology Life Quality Index and utility scores.

Authors:  Fanni Rencz; Petra Baji; László Gulácsi; Sarolta Kárpáti; Márta Péntek; Adrienn Katalin Poór; Valentin Brodszky
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-12-18       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Do clinical marker states improve responsiveness and construct validity of the standard gamble and feeling thermometer: a randomized multi-center trial in patients with chronic respiratory disease.

Authors:  Holger J Schünemann; Roger Goldstein; M Jeffery Mador; Douglas McKim; Elisabeth Stahl; Lauren E Griffith; Ahmed M Bayoumi; Peggy Austin; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Sourcing quality-of-life weights obtained from previous studies: theory and reality in Korea.

Authors:  SeungJin Bae; Eun Young Bae; Sang Hee Lim
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Health-related quality of life in veterans and nonveterans with HIV/AIDS.

Authors:  Joseph M Mrus; Anthony C Leonard; Michael S Yi; Susan N Sherman; Shawn L Fultz; Amy C Justice; Joel Tsevat
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Preference values associated with stage III colon cancer and adjuvant chemotherapy.

Authors:  Jennie H Best; Louis P Garrison; William Hollingworth; Scott D Ramsey; David L Veenstra
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 6.  Measuring health preferences for use in cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses of interventions in children: theoretical and methodological considerations.

Authors:  Lisa A Prosser; James K Hammitt; Ron Keren
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Quality of life valuations of mammography screening.

Authors:  Amy E Bonomi; Denise M Boudreau; Paul A Fishman; Evette Ludman; Amy Mohelnitzky; Elizabeth A Cannon; Deb Seger
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-05-20       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Health state utilities for migraine based on attack frequency: a time trade-off study.

Authors:  Fanni Rencz; Valentin Brodszky; Márta Péntek; Dániel Bereczki; László Gulácsi
Journal:  Neurol Sci       Date:  2014-08-10       Impact factor: 3.307

9.  A randomized study of scleroderma health state values: a picture is worth a thousand words, and quite a few utiles. [corrected].

Authors:  Dinesh Khanna; Robert M Kaplan; Mark H Eckman; Ron D Hays; Anthony C Leonard; Shaari S Ginsburg; Joel Tsevat
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2008-11-17       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  The disutility of chronic gout.

Authors:  Dinesh Khanna; Mansoor Ahmed; Dustin Yontz; Shaari S Ginsburg; Grace S Park; Anthony Leonard; Joel Tsevat
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-05-24       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.