Literature DB >> 12809319

"Perfect health" versus "disease free": the impact of anchor point choice on the measurement of preferences and the calculation of disease-specific disutilities.

Joseph T King1, Mindi A Styn, Joel Tsevat, Mark S Roberts.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: During preference testing, some investigators use "perfect health" as the upper anchor point of their measurement scale ("Q scale"), whereas others use "disease free" ("q scale"), which can confound the interpretation and comparison of study results.
METHODS: We measured current health preferences among 74 patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) on both the Q and q scales using the visual analogue scale (VAS), standard gamble (SG), time tradeoff (TTO), and willingness to pay (WTP).
RESULTS: There were significant differences in mean Q and q scale values for the VAS, SG, and WTP (for all, P < 0.011); there were no significant differences for mean TTO values (P = 0.592). CSM accounted for 63% to 82% of total disutility, whereas other comorbidities accounted for 28% to 37%.
CONCLUSIONS: Preferences for CSM differ when measured on the Q and q scales. Caution should be used when comparing and interpreting health values measured on scales with different upper anchors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12809319     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X03023003003

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


  7 in total

1.  Marker states and a health state prompt provide modest improvements in the reliability and validity of the standard gamble and rating scale in prostate cancer patients.

Authors:  Karen E Bremner; George Tomlinson; Murray D Krahn
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-10-03       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Korean guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluation (second and updated version) : consensus and compromise.

Authors:  Seungjin Bae; Soook Lee; Eun Young Bae; Sunmee Jang
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.981

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.  How do patients with HIV/AIDS understand and respond to health value questions?

Authors:  Susan N Sherman; Joseph M Mrus; Michael S Yi; Judith Feinberg; Joel Tsevat
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 5.  Time trade-off health state utility values for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Péter György Balázs; Dalma Erdősi; Antal Zemplényi; Valentin Brodszky
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2022-09-30       Impact factor: 3.440

6.  Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods.

Authors:  Arthur E Attema; Yvette Edelaar-Peeters; Matthijs M Versteegh; Elly A Stolk
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2013-07

7.  Cognitive impairment and preferences for current health.

Authors:  Joseph T King; Joel Tsevat; Mark S Roberts
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2009-01-09       Impact factor: 3.186

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.