Literature DB >> 1573978

Cancer patients' evaluations of their current health states: the influences of expectations, comparisons, actual health status, and mood.

H A Llewellyn-Thomas1, E C Thiel, M J McGreal.   

Abstract

A study was done to determine the extent to which patients' subjective evaluations of their current health are determined by their expectations, their actual health, and how they compare themselves with others. At the initiation of radiation therapy, 61 laryngeal cancer patients described the health status they expected at the end of therapy, using standardized and individualized dimensions. Objective summative scores were derived for these descriptions. At the end of therapy, these respondents described their current health status and the status they believed others their age were experiencing, on the same dimensions, and objective summative scores were derived for these actual and social comparison states. Rating scales and standard gambles were used to obtain values and utilities ("subjective evaluations") for current health at the end of therapy. Multiple linear regression was used to determine the extent to which variation in the subjective evaluations was explained by the objective scores for actual, expected, and social comparison states, under these different methodologic conditions. Actual health state was a consistently significant predictor. Most variance was explained in the model using individualized dimensions and value scores (r2 = 46.0%). Further investigation is needed to determine whether differences in the amounts of variance explained are due to aversion to gambling, dimension salience, order effects, or respondent fatigue.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1573978     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9201200204

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


  11 in total

1.  Studying patients' preferences in health care decision making. Health Services Research Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1992-09-15       Impact factor: 8.262

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

Review 3.  Quality of life assessments and levels of decision making: differentiating objectives.

Authors:  H J Sutherland; J E Till
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Opinion polling and decision making: a critical appraisal of quality of life assessment.

Authors:  H J Sutherland; J E Till
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Health values of patients with bipolar disorder.

Authors:  J Tsevat; P E Keck; R W Hornung; S L McElroy
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  A comparison of two approaches for assessing patient importance weights to conduct an Extended Q-TWiST analysis.

Authors:  C E Schwartz; S D Mathias; D J Pasta; H H Colwell; B D Rapkin; M W Genderson; J M Henning
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Patients' health-related quality-of-life and health state values for motor neurone disease/amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Authors:  C Green; G Kiebert; C Murphy; J D Mitchell; M O'Brien; A Burrell; P N Leigh
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Choices in oncology: factors that influence patients' treatment preference.

Authors:  G M Kiebert; A M Stiggelbout; J Kievit; J W Leer; C J van de Velde; H J de Haes
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  The effect of qualitative vs. quantitative presentation of probability estimates on patient decision-making: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Malcolm Man-Son-Hing; Annette M O'Connor; Elizabeth Drake; Jennifer Biggs; Valerie Hum; Andreas Laupacis
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.377

10.  Quantifying trade-offs: quality of life and quality-adjusted survival in a randomised trial of chemotherapy in postmenopausal patients with lymph node-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  J Bernhard; D Zahrieh; A S Coates; R D Gelber; M Castiglione-Gertsch; E Murray; J F Forbes; L Perey; J Collins; R Snyder; C-M Rudenstam; D Crivellari; A Veronesi; B Thürlimann; M F Fey; K N Price; A Goldhirsch; C Hürny
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2004-11-29       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.