Literature DB >> 8152361

Measuring preferences for health states worse than death.

D L Patrick1, H E Starks, K C Cain, R F Uhlmann, R A Pearlman.   

Abstract

Previous research indicates that persons assigning values to ranges of health states consider some states to be worse than death. In a study of decisions regarding life-sustaining treatments, the authors adapted and assessed existing methods for their ability to identify and quantify preferences for health states near to or worse than death in a population of well adults and nursing home residents. The cognitive burdens involved in these decisions were also evaluated. Hypothetical health states based on six attributes of functional status were constructed to describe severe constant pain, dementia, and coma. The methods of rank order, category scaling, time tradeoff, and standard gamble were adapted to quantify states worse than death. Cognitive burden was assessed using completion rates, interviewer assessments, respondents' self-reporting, and investigators' evaluations. For both respondent groups, all methods showed similar degrees of cognitive burden for those able to complete the tasks and were similar in their ability to identify and quantify preferences. The majority of nursing home residents, however, were unable to complete or comprehend the measurement tasks. Most respondents evaluated their current health and severe constant pain as better than death; dementia and coma were more often considered equal to or worse than death. These results indicate that respondents can and do evaluate some health states as worse than death. The authors recommend systematic inclusion of states worse than death to describe a more complete range of preference values and routine assessment of the cognitive burdens of assessment techniques to evaluate methodologies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8152361     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9401400102

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


  76 in total

Review 1.  Cost utility analysis of radiographic screening for an orbital foreign body before MR imaging.

Authors:  D J Seidenwurm; C H McDonnell; N Raghavan; J Breslau
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 3.825

2.  Survival and functional outcome after prolonged intensive care unit stay.

Authors:  P A Lipsett; S M Swoboda; J Dickerson; M Ylitalo; T Gordon; M Breslow; K Campbell; T Dorman; P Pronovost; B Rosenfeld
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 3.  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

4.  The influence of ill-health experience on the valuation of health.

Authors:  X Badia; M Herdman; P Kind
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Comparison of health state utility values derived using time trade-off, rank and discrete choice data anchored on the full health-dead scale.

Authors:  John Brazier; Donna Rowen; Yaling Yang; Aki Tsuchiya
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2011-09-30

Review 6.  [Long-term outcome of elderly patients after intensive care treatment].

Authors:  M Wehler
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 0.840

Review 7.  Multi-attribute preference functions. Health Utilities Index.

Authors:  G W Torrance; W Furlong; D Feeny; M Boyle
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Toward a more universal approach in health valuation.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig; Jan J V Busschbach
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 3.046

9.  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

10.  Revisiting United States valuation of EQ-5D states.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig; Jan J V Busschbach
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2011-07-21       Impact factor: 3.883

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.