Literature DB >> 20204705

Estimating importance weights for the IWQOL-Lite using conjoint analysis.

A Brett Hauber1, Ateesha F Mohamed, F Reed Johnson, Olatoye Oyelowo, Bradley H Curtis, Cheryl Coon.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Our objective was to estimate preference-based weights for the IWQOL-Lite that reflect the relative importance overweight and obese people place on the domains included in the instrument.
METHODS: US residents, 18 years of age or older, who are overweight (BMI=25.0-29.9) or obese (BMI>or=30) completed an online survey instrument consisting of 12 choice questions. The survey included eight attributes: problems doing usual daily activities, physical symptoms, worry about health, low self-esteem, sexual problems, problems moving around or sitting in public places, teasing or discrimination, and problems at work. Ordered probit was used to estimate importance weights for the attributes and levels.
RESULTS: Five hundred and two subjects completed the survey. Sexual problem was the most important attribute. The remaining attributes can be ranked on the order of importance as follows: low self-esteem, physical symptoms, daily activities, teasing or discrimination, moving around or sitting, problems at work, and worry about health.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm previous findings that weighting the individual items in the IWQOL-Lite by the importance of outcomes to overweight and obese subjects may provide a more meaningful evaluation of the effect of changes in weight on patient well-being than a nonpreference-based measure of HRQOL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20204705     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-010-9621-9

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


  19 in total

1.  Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format, stated-preference approach.

Authors:  F R Johnson; M R Banzhaf; W H Desvousges
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Heterogeneity in the relationship between the standard-gamble utility measure and health-status dimensions.

Authors:  J R Bult; J L Bosch; M G Hunink
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1996 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Constructing health state preference values from descriptive quality of life outcomes: mission impossible?

Authors:  J V Chancellor; D Coyle; M F Drummond
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  The relationship between health-related quality of life and weight loss.

Authors:  R L Kolotkin; R D Crosby; G R Williams; G G Hartley; S Nicol
Journal:  Obes Res       Date:  2001-09

5.  A comparison of quality of life in obese individuals with and without binge eating disorder.

Authors:  Elizabeth Rieger; Denise E Wilfley; Richard I Stein; Valentina Marino; Scott J Crow
Journal:  Int J Eat Disord       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 4.861

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.  Patient preferences for acute pain treatment.

Authors:  T J Gan; D A Lubarsky; E M Flood; T Thanh; J Mauskopf; T Mayne; C Chen
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2004-03-05       Impact factor: 9.166

8.  Are chemotherapy patients' HRQoL importance weights consistent with linear scoring rules? A stated-choice approach.

Authors:  F Reed Johnson; A Brett Hauber; David Osoba; Ming-Ann Hsu; John Coombs; Catherine Copley-Merriman
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Stated preferences of patients with cancer for health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) domains during treatment.

Authors:  David Osoba; Ming-Ann Hsu; Catherine Copley-Merriman; John Coombs; F Reed Johnson; Brett Hauber; Ranjani Manjunath; Amanda Pyles
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Changes in weight and weight-related quality of life in a multicentre, randomized trial of aripiprazole versus standard of care.

Authors:  Ronette L Kolotkin; Patricia K Corey-Lisle; Ross D Crosby; Hong J Kan; Robert D McQuade
Journal:  Eur Psychiatry       Date:  2008-04-18       Impact factor: 5.361

View more
  9 in total

1.  Patient preferences and linear scoring rules for patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Ateesha F Mohamed; A Brett Hauber; F Reed Johnson; Cheryl D Coon
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2010-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Can patients diagnosed with schizophrenia complete choice-based conjoint analysis tasks?

Authors:  John F P Bridges; Elizabeth T Kinter; Annette Schmeding; Ina Rudolph; Axel Mühlbacher
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 3.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Michael D Clark; Domino Determann; Stavros Petrou; Domenico Moro; Esther W de Bekker-Grob
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Assessing the Importance of Treatment Goals in Patients with Psoriasis: Analytic Hierarchy Process vs. Likert Scales.

Authors:  Mandy Gutknecht; Marion Danner; Marthe-Lisa Schaarschmidt; Christian Gross; Matthias Augustin
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Analysis of Patient Preferences in Lung Cancer - Estimating Acceptable Tradeoffs Between Treatment Benefit and Side Effects.

Authors:  Ellen M Janssen; Sydney M Dy; Alexa S Meara; Peter J Kneuertz; Carolyn J Presley; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 2.711

Review 6.  Dimensions Used in Instruments for QALY Calculation: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Moustapha Touré; Christian R C Kouakou; Thomas G Poder
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-04-21       Impact factor: 3.390

7.  Quantifying the importance of inhaler attributes corresponding to items in the patient satisfaction and preference questionnaire in patients using Combivent Respimat.

Authors:  Kimberly H Davis; Jun Su; Juan Marcos González; Jeremiah J Trudeau; Lauren M Nelson; Brett Hauber; Kelly A Hollis
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2017-10-16       Impact factor: 3.186

8.  Patients' preferences for bone metastases treatments in France, Germany and the United Kingdom.

Authors:  Guy Hechmati; A Brett Hauber; Jorge Arellano; Ateesha F Mohamed; Yi Qian; Francesca Gatta; Ian Haynes; Amit Bahl; Roger von Moos; Jean-Jacques Body
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2014-06-18       Impact factor: 3.603

9.  Measuring the importance of health domains in psoriasis - discrete choice experiment versus rating scales.

Authors:  Mandy Gutknecht; Marthe-Lisa Schaarschmidt; Marion Danner; Christine Blome; Matthias Augustin
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 2.711

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.