Literature DB >> 15058783

The stability of utility scores: test-retest reliability and the interpretation of utility scores in elective total hip arthroplasty.

D Feeny1, C M Blanchard, J L Mahon, R Bourne, C Rorabeck, L Stitt, S Webster-Bogaert.   

Abstract

PURPOSES: Are utility scores for hypothetical health states stable over time even when the health of the patient changes dramatically? Can investigators who use scores for hypothetical states be confident about the stability of those scores? The first purpose is to assess the stability of standard gamble utility scores for three hypothetical health states describing mild, moderate, and severe osteoarthritis (OA) (test-retest reliability). How should investigators interpret utility scores? The second purpose is to provide evidence on the marker-state approach to assist in interpreting utility scores.
BACKGROUND: SG scores for three hypothetical marker states and the patient's current state were obtained at multiple times in a longitudinal study of elective total hip arthroplasty (THA). SG scores for current health increased from a mean of 0.59 pre-surgery to 0.76 post-surgery.
METHODS: Test-retest reliability was assessed using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). The effects of time on scores were analysed using an analysis of covariance.
RESULTS: At the group level the marker-state scores were stable. Mean scores for mild, moderate, and severe OA were 0.69, 0.61, and 0.41. With respect to test-retest reliability, ICCs varied from 0.49 to 0.62. In general, time did not affect the scores for the three marker states.
CONCLUSIONS: Group-level standard gamble scores are stable. At the individual level scores for hypothetical health states are somewhat stable over time. The marker states assist in interpretation indicating that, on average, THA converted moderate OA to better than mild.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15058783     DOI: 10.1023/B:QURE.0000015307.33811.2d

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  38 in total

1.  Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation.

Authors:  R A Deyo; P Diehr; D L Patrick
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1991-08

Review 2.  Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life.

Authors:  G W Torrance
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

Review 3.  Interpretation of quality of life changes.

Authors:  E Lydick; R S Epstein
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 4.  Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures.

Authors:  R D Hays; R Anderson; D Revicki
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Test-retest reliability of health state valuations collected with the EuroQol questionnaire.

Authors:  H M van Agt; M L Essink-Bot; P F Krabbe; G J Bonsel
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 4.634

6.  Do patients' evaluations of a future health state change when they actually enter that state?

Authors:  H A Llewellyn-Thomas; H J Sutherland; E C Thiel
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Associations between health status and utilities implications for policy.

Authors:  L A Lenert; J R Treadwell; C E Schwartz
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  Health-related quality of life and mobility of patients awaiting elective total hip arthroplasty: a prospective study.

Authors:  Jeffrey L Mahon; Robert B Bourne; Cecil H Rorabeck; David H Feeny; Larry Stitt; Susan Webster-Bogaert
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2002-11-12       Impact factor: 8.262

9.  Whose preferences count?

Authors:  P Dolan
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1999 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 10.  Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures.

Authors:  Gordon H Guyatt; David Osoba; Albert W Wu; Kathleen W Wyrwich; Geoffrey R Norman
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 7.616

View more
  10 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.  Assessing the value of a total joint replacement.

Authors:  David B Bumpass; Ryan M Nunley
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2012-12

3.  Use of the Tailored Activities Program to reduce neuropsychiatric behaviors in dementia: an Australian protocol for a randomized trial to evaluate its effectiveness.

Authors:  C M O'Connor; L Clemson; H Brodaty; Y H Jeon; E Mioshi; L N Gitlin
Journal:  Int Psychogeriatr       Date:  2014-02-10       Impact factor: 3.878

4.  Comparing short form 6D, standard gamble, and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 utility scores: results from total hip arthroplasty patients.

Authors:  David Feeny; Lieling Wu; Ken Eng
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Eliciting utilities using functional methodology: people's disutilities for the adverse outcomes of cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Authors:  Alexandra Gamelin; María Teresa Muñoz Sastre; Paul Clay Sorum; Etienne Mullet
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 6.  Analyzing oncology clinical trial data using the Q-TWiST method: clinical importance and sources for health state preference data.

Authors:  Dennis A Revicki; David Feeny; Timothy L Hunt; Bernard F Cole
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Impact of discussion on preferences elicited in a group setting.

Authors:  Ken Stein; Julie Ratcliffe; Ali Round; Ruairidh Milne; John E Brazier
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2006-03-29       Impact factor: 3.186

8.  Impact of caregiver and parenting status on time trade-off and standard gamble utility scores for health state descriptions.

Authors:  Louis S Matza; Kristina S Boye; David H Feeny; Joseph A Johnston; Lee Bowman; Jessica B Jordan
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2014-04-09       Impact factor: 3.186

9.  Appraisal and patient-reported outcomes following total hip arthroplasty: a longitudinal cohort study.

Authors:  Carolyn E Schwartz; Bruce D Rapkin; Jhase Sniderman; Joel A Finkelstein
Journal:  J Patient Rep Outcomes       Date:  2022-09-05

10.  The time horizon matters: results of an exploratory study varying the timeframe in time trade-off and standard gamble utility elicitation.

Authors:  Louis S Matza; Kristina S Boye; David H Feeny; Lee Bowman; Joseph A Johnston; Katie D Stewart; Kelly McDaniel; Jessica Jordan
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2015-11-26
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.