Literature DB >> 21505879

Constantly proving the opposite? A test of CPTO using a broad time horizon and correcting for discounting.

Arthur E Attema1, Werner B F Brouwer.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: An important assumption underlying the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) model is that people trade off life years against health in the same proportion irrespective of the number of remaining life years. This is known as the constant proportional trade-offs (CPTO) condition. Previous studies have produced mixed empirical evidence about the validity of CPTO. This paper is the first to test CPTO using the time trade-off (TTO) method for a broad time horizon.
METHODS: In a sample of 83 students, we use a choice based TTO protocol to elicit TTO scores for back pain, using ten different gauge durations ranging between 1 and 46 years. The TTO scores are corrected for discounting, which is elicited by means of the direct method.
RESULTS: We find average TTO scores varying between 0.72 and 0.81. Although the scores do not differ much for different durations in absolute terms, some differences are significant, rejecting CPTO, with and without correcting for discounting. No clear relationship between TTO scores and gauge duration is found. An anchoring and rounding heuristic to some extent explains our results.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the importance of elicitation methods and context dependencies in QALY measurement and warrant detailed investigation of their influence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21505879      PMCID: PMC3254865          DOI: 10.1007/s11136-011-9917-4

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


  21 in total

1.  To what extent can we explain time trade-off values from other information about respondents?

Authors:  Paul Dolan; Jennifer Roberts
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 2.  Are QALYs based on time trade-off comparable?--A systematic review of TTO methodologies.

Authors:  Trude Arnesen; Mari Trommald
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  Correcting biases in standard gamble and time tradeoff utilities.

Authors:  Sylvie M C van Osch; Peter P Wakker; Wilbert B van den Hout; Anne M Stiggelbout
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2004 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 4.  Time preference, the discounted utility model and health.

Authors:  H Bleichrodt; A Gafni
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  A fallacy of the multiplicative QALY model for low-quality weights in students and patients judging hypothetical health states.

Authors:  P F Stalmeier; G B Chapman; A G de Boer; J J van Lanschot
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.188

6.  Time preference bias in time trade-off.

Authors:  Marjon van der Pol; Larissa Roux
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2005-06

7.  Proportional heuristics in time tradeoff and conjoint measurement.

Authors:  P F Stalmeier; T G Bezembinder; I J Unic
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1996 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  A multiplicative model of the utility of survival duration and health quality.

Authors:  J M Miyamoto; S A Eraker
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  1988-03

9.  A comparison of standard gamble, time trade-off, and adjusted time trade-off scores.

Authors:  A J Martin; P P Glasziou; R J Simes; T Lumley
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 2.188

10.  A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities.

Authors:  Han Bleichrodt
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.046

View more
  1 in total

1.  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
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.