Literature DB >> 8483398

Test-retest reliabilities of two treatment-preference instruments in measuring utilities.

G M Kiebert1, A M Stiggelbout, J W Leer, J Kievit, H J de Haes.   

Abstract

The authors assessed the test-retest reliabilities of two treatment-preference instruments recently applied to the measurement of the utilities of health states after different treatment modalities for cancer. The first instrument measures the strengths of preferences concerning a choice between a wait-and-see policy, and treatment with radiotherapy after an initial surgical breast-conserving procedure for early breast cancer. The second measures the strengths of preferences concerning a choice between two hypothetical surgical treatment outcomes in cancer of the rectum with different probabilities of expected five-year survival. Both measure the strength of a subject's treatment preference given probabilities of treatment-related costs and benefits. The subjects were radiotherapy technicians (n = 20) and cancer patients (n = 20) who were interviewed in weeks 2 and 4 of radiotherapy. The test-retest reliabilities of both instruments were inconsistent and moderately high, with Spearman's rank correlations ranging from 0.38 to 0.81 and weighted kappas ranging from 0.38 to 0.69. To investigate whether the start of treatment with radiotherapy influenced the utilities that patients assigned to health states, the same procedure was applied in another, comparable, group of patients with cancer (n = 20). For this group, the first assessment was made prior to the start of treatment and the second during the second week of radiation therapy. The scores of this group of patients indeed appeared to be less stable than the scores of the patients assessed in weeks 2 and 4 of radiotherapy. However, the instability of the scores could have been the result of test bias.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8483398     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9301300207

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


  8 in total

1.  Live liver donors' risk thresholds: risking a life to save a life.

Authors:  Michele Molinari; Jacob Matz; Sarah DeCoutere; Karim El-Tawil; Bassam Abu-Wasel; Valerie Keough
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 3.647

2.  Exploring health preferences in sociodemographic and health related groups through the paired comparison of the items of the Nottingham health profile.

Authors:  L Prieto; J Alonso
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 3.710

3.  A comparison of two approaches for assessing patient importance weights to conduct an Extended Q-TWiST analysis.

Authors:  C E Schwartz; S D Mathias; D J Pasta; H H Colwell; B D Rapkin; M W Genderson; J M Henning
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Methodologic evaluation of adaptive conjoint analysis to assess patient preferences: an application in oncology.

Authors:  Arwen H Pieterse; Anne M Stiggelbout; Corrie A M Marijnen
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  A treatment trade-off based decision aid for patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Michael D. Brundage; Deb Feldman-Stewart; Peter Dixon; Richard Gregg; Youssef Youssef; Diane Davies; William J. MacKillop
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Health care sought and received by men with urinary symptoms, and their views on prostatectomy.

Authors:  D J Hunter; C M McKee; N A Black; C F Sanderson
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  Subjective health estimations (SHE) in patients with advanced breast cancer: an adapted utility concept for clinical trials.

Authors:  C Hürny; B van Wegberg; M Bacchi; J Bernhard; B Thürlimann; O Real; L Perey; H Bonnefoi; A Coates
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Patients' preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage breast cancer: is treatment worthwhile?

Authors:  S J Jansen; J Kievit; M A Nooij; J C de Haes; I M Overpelt; H van Slooten; E Maartense; A M Stiggelbout
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2001-06-15       Impact factor: 7.640

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.