Literature DB >> 2182963

Whose utilities for decision analysis?

N F Boyd1, H J Sutherland, K Z Heasman, D L Tritchler, B J Cummings.   

Abstract

The goal of this study was to examine sources of variation in the utilities assigned to health states. The authors selected a common clinical problem, carcinoma of the rectum, and examined the utilities assigned to colostomy, a common outcome of treatment for that disease. After preparing and validating a description of colostomy and its effects on patients' lives, utilities for the state were obtained from five groups of individuals. These comprised two groups of patients who received treatment for rectal cancer, a group of physicians and surgeons specializing in the treatment of this disease, and two groups of healthy subjects, none of whom were health professionals. Of the patients who had been treated for rectal cancer, one group had been treated surgically with the formation of colostomies and the other had been treated with radiotherapy and none had a colostomy. Utilities for colostomy were elicited using the standard gamble, category rating, and a treatment choice questionnaire. The groups differed substantially in the utilities assigned to colostomy. In general, patients with colostomies and physicians assigned significantly higher utilities than did patients who did not themselves have a colostomy. The clinical significance of these differences was examined in a simplified clinical decision problem that compared surgery (with colostomy) and radiotherapy (without colostomy) as primary treatment. The expected clinical value of these treatment alternatives was substantially influenced by the differences observed in utilities for colostomy. These results emphasize the importance of patient utilities in clinical decision making and the need to gain greater understanding of the factors that influence the utilities that patients assign to health states.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2182963     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9001000109

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


  79 in total

Review 1.  Benefit valuation in economic evaluation of cancer therapies. A systematic review of the published literature.

Authors:  J Brown; M Sculpher
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Comparison of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D in patients treated for intermittent claudication.

Authors:  J L Bosch; M G Hunink
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 3.  How do patients' treatment preferences compare with those of clinicians?

Authors:  A A Montgomery; T Fahey
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-09

4.  A new graphic for quality adjusted life years (Q-TWiST) survival analysis: the Q-TWiST plot.

Authors:  Jeff A Sloan; Daniel J Sargent; Jed Lindman; Cristine Allmer; Delfino Vargas-Chanes; Edward T Creagan; James A Bonner; Michael J O'Connell; Robert J Dalton; Kendrith M Rowland; Burke J Brooks; John A Laurie
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Prospective study of health status preferences and changes in preferences over time in older adults.

Authors:  Terri R Fried; Amy L Byers; William T Gallo; Peter H Van Ness; Virginia R Towle; John R O'Leary; Joel A Dubin
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2006-04-24

6.  Should a medical/surgical specialist with formal training in bioethics provide health care ethics consultation in his/her own area of speciality?

Authors:  Mark Bernstein; Kerry Bowman
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2003-09

7.  A meta-analysis of quality-of-life estimates for stroke.

Authors:  Tammy O Tengs; Ting H Lin
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.981

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

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

9.  Chained time trade-off and standard gamble methods. Applications in oesophageal cancer.

Authors:  Paul McNamee; Sharon Glendinning; Jonathan Shenfine; Nick Steen; S Michael Griffin; John Bond
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2004-02

10.  Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public.

Authors:  Peter A Ubel; George Loewenstein; Christopher Jepson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.