Literature DB >> 7808206

Comparison of the rating scale and the standard gamble in measuring patient preferences for outcomes of gallstone disease.

E B Bass1, E P Steinberg, H A Pitt, R I Griffiths, K D Lillemoe, G P Saba, C Johns.   

Abstract

To estimate patient preferences for gallstone-related treatments and outcomes, and assess how preferences vary by patient characteristics and scaling technique, the authors randomly assigned 40 patients without gallstones to interviews based on a rating scale (n = 22) and a standard gamble (n = 18). The patients assigned preference values (possible values 0 to 1) to open cholecystectomy (mean 0.45 by rating scale, 0.78 by standard gamble), laparoscopic cholecystectomy (0.71, 0.91), extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (0.77, 0.89), acute cholecystitis (0.36, 0.77), lifetime biliary colic (0.41, 0.71), postcholecystectomy syndrome (0.43, 0.79), asymptomatic stone necessitating treatment with bile acids (0.76, 0.96), and surgical scar (0.79, 0.998). Preferences varied little by age, gender, or race. Standard gamble values were highly correlated with, but significantly greater than, rating scale values. The authors conclude that patients' preferences for gallstone-related conditions generally are significantly less than one, and differ markedly by the scaling technique used to derive them. These results should be considered when patient preferences are incorporated into analyses of gallstone treatments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7808206     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9401400401

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


  18 in total

1.  Feasibility, validity and test-retest reliability of scaling methods for health states: the visual analogue scale and the time trade-off.

Authors:  X Badia; S Monserrat; M Roset; M Herdman
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Neck pain patients' preference scores for their current health.

Authors:  Gabrielle van der Velde; Sheilah Hogg-Johnson; Ahmed M Bayoumi; Pierre Côté; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; Eric L Hurwitz; Murray Krahn
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-03-27       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  The effect of assessment method and respondent population on utilities elicited for Gaucher disease.

Authors:  A E Clarke; M K Goldstein; D Michelson; A M Garber; L A Lenert
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Measuring women's preferences for breast cancer treatments and BRCA1/BRCA2 testing.

Authors:  M Cappelli; L Surh; L Humphreys; S Verma; D Logan; A Hunter; J Allanson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Assessing health-related quality of life in cataract patients: the relationship between utility and health-related quality of life measurement.

Authors:  J E Lee; P J Fos; M A Zuniga; P R Kastl; J H Sung
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  The measurement of patient-reported outcomes of refractive surgery: the refractive status and vision profile.

Authors:  O D Schein
Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc       Date:  2000

7.  Patient preferences for side effects associated with cervical cancer treatment.

Authors:  Charlotte Sun; Alaina J Brown; Anuja Jhingran; Michael Frumovitz; Lois Ramondetta; Diane C Bodurka
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 3.437

8.  Utilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  Kristina S Boye; Louis S Matza; Kimberly N Walter; Kate Van Brunt; Andrew C Palsgrove; Aodan Tynan
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2010-03-12

9.  Health state preference assessment in diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

Authors:  Sean D Sullivan; Doris P Lew; E Beth Devine; Zafar Hakim; Gayle E Reiber; David L Veenstra
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Cost-effectiveness of elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus observation in older patients presenting with mild biliary disease.

Authors:  Abhishek D Parmar; Mark D Coutin; Gabriela M Vargas; Nina P Tamirisa; Kristin M Sheffield; Taylor S Riall
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2014-06-12       Impact factor: 3.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.