Literature DB >> 8152360

Utility assessment in cancer patients: adjustment of time tradeoff scores for the utility of life years and comparison with standard gamble scores.

A M Stiggelbout1, G M Kiebert, J Kievit, J W Leer, G Stoter, J C de Haes.   

Abstract

The standard gamble (SG) and the time tradeoff (TTO), two frequently used methods of utility assessment, have often been found to lead to different utilities for the same health state. The authors investigated whether adjustment of TTO scores for the utility of life years (risk attitude) eliminated this difference. In addition, the association between risk attitude and sociodemographic and medical variables was studied. In 30 disease-free testicular cancer patients, SG and TTO were used to assess the utilities of four health profiles relevant to testicular cancer. Utility of life years was estimated from certainty equivalents (CEs). SG scores were significantly higher than unadjusted TTO scores for all profiles. As the majority of patients (85%) were risk-averse, CE-adjusted TTO scores were higher than unadjusted scores, and were not significantly different from those obtained from the SG for three of the four profiles. However, adjusted scores were still slightly but consistently lower than SG scores. Possible explanations for this discrepancy are discussed. An association was found between risk aversion and medical treatment: patients who had received chemotherapy for their cancers were more risk-averse than were patients who had been in a surveillance protocol only. As risk aversion can have an impact on treatment decisions, it is important to assess the risk posture of the patient to whom the decision pertains.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8152360     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9401400110

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


  26 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

Review 2.  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

3.  Improving the sensitivity of the time trade-off method: results of an experiment using chained TTO questions.

Authors:  G C Morrison; A Neilson; M Malek
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2002-02

Review 4.  On individual preferences and aggregation in economic evaluation in healthcare.

Authors:  B Liljas; B Lindgren
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  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

Review 6.  Valuing health-related quality of life. Issues and controversies.

Authors:  P Dolan
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Efficient use of health care resources: the interaction between improved health and reduced health related income loss.

Authors:  Michael Hoel
Journal:  Int J Health Care Finance Econ       Date:  2002-11

Review 8.  Population health. More than the sum of the parts?

Authors:  Daniel D Reidpath
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.710

9.  Estimating utility values for vesicoureteral reflux in the general public using an online tool.

Authors:  Jessica C Lloyd; Talitha Yen; Ricardo Pietrobon; John S Wiener; Sherry S Ross; Paul J Kokorowski; Caleb P Nelson; Jonathan C Routh
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2014-04-04       Impact factor: 1.830

10.  Feasibility, comparability, and reliability of the standard gamble compared with the rating scale and time trade-off techniques in Korean population.

Authors:  Seon-Ha Kim; Sang-Il Lee; Min-Woo Jo
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-08-11       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.