Literature DB >> 8005790

The standard gamble method: what is being measured and how it is interpreted.

A Gafni1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The Standard Gamble (SG) technique is recommended for measurement of individuals' preferences under uncertainty and to express the outcome of different therapeutic choices in utility values to be used in clinical decision analysis and health program evaluation. The article alerts users of this technique to problems stemming from inappropriate interpretation of results of measurements using the SG method. STUDY
DESIGN: We review different situations where the SG method is used to measure individuals' or group preferences. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: We demonstrate inappropriate interpretation of the time dimension at the individual level; issues stemming from the aggregation of individual utility values measured using different time horizons; the potential for double counting of the time preference effect when discounting future quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); and problems associated with using the SG technique to measure temporary health states.
CONCLUSIONS: The inappropriate interpretations stem mainly either from ignoring the time dimension, which is inextricably bound to the health of the individual, or form adding assumptions, in addition to those required by von Neumann-Morgenstern (vNM) utility theory, that are not supported by empirical evidence. An alternative approach to QALYs, the healthy years equivalent (HYE), which incorporates the SG but avoids many of these problems, is described.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8005790      PMCID: PMC1069999     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  23 in total

Review 1.  The use of QALYs in health care decision making.

Authors:  G Loomes; L McKenzie
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 2.  Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal.

Authors:  G W Torrance
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  1986-03       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Evaluation of public investment in health care. Is the risk irrelevant?

Authors:  U Ben-Zion; A Gafni
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  1983-08       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Incorporating utility-based quality-of-life assessment measures in clinical trials. Two examples.

Authors:  D H Feeny; G W Torrance
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Nonionic contrast media: economic analysis and health policy development.

Authors:  V Goel; R B Deber; A S Detsky
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1989-02-15       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 6.  Time preference for health in cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  J Lipscomb
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Methodology for measuring health-state preferences--II: Scaling methods.

Authors:  D G Froberg; R L Kane
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 8.  Decision analysis.

Authors:  S G Pauker; J P Kassirer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1987-01-29       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  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

10.  Parameter estimates for a QALY utility model.

Authors:  J M Miyamoto; S A Eraker
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 2.583

View more
  47 in total

Review 1.  Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques.

Authors:  C Green; J Brazier; M Deverill
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Measurement of short term health effects in economic evaluations.

Authors:  A M Holmes
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  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

4.  Validity of standard gamble utilities in patients referred for aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Amjad I Hussain; Andrew M Garratt; Jan Otto Beitnes; Lars Gullestad; Kjell I Pettersen
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-11-24       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 5.  A Note on the Validity and Reliability of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines.

Authors:  Alberto Garcia-Hernandez
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 5.606

6.  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

7.  Shared Decision-Making Ontology for a Healthcare Team Executing a Workflow, an Instantiation for Metastatic Spinal Cord Compression Management.

Authors:  Enea Parimbelli; Szymon Wilk; Stephen Kingwell; Pavel Andreev; Wojtek Michalowski
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2018-12-05

Review 8.  Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in Orthopaedic Surgery: Raising the Bar.

Authors:  Prashant V Rajan; Rameez A Qudsi; Lindsey L Wolf; Elena Losina
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2017-07-05       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Understanding patients' values and preferences regarding early stage lung cancer treatment decision making.

Authors:  Donald R Sullivan; Karen B Eden; Nathan F Dieckmann; Sara E Golden; Kelly C Vranas; Shannon M Nugent; Christopher G Slatore
Journal:  Lung Cancer       Date:  2019-03-09       Impact factor: 5.705

10.  Women's views of two interventions designed to assist in the prophylactic oophorectomy decision: a qualitative pilot evaluation.

Authors:  Vanita Bhavnani; Aileen Clarke; Jack Dowie; Andrew Kennedy; Ian Pell
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.377

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.