Literature DB >> 8818120

Heterogeneity in the relationship between the standard-gamble utility measure and health-status dimensions.

J R Bult1, J L Bosch, M G Hunink.   

Abstract

The authors assessed the relationship between the standard-gamble utility measure and the RAND-36 health-status dimensions, taking into account possible heterogeneity among patients in the weights they assign to different health-status dimensions. A questionnaire including both measures was completed by 68 patients with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease. Conventional multiple regression analysis, assuming a homogeneous relationship for the total population between the standard-gamble utility and the RAND-36 health-status dimensions, demonstrated that only the dimension social functioning was significant (p < 0.05), which accounted for 10% of the variation. Assuming that the population consisted of two separate classes demonstrated superior representation of the data. Latent class analysis was used to estimate the unknown parameters and class memberships. In the first class, consisting of 65% of the patients, the relationship between the standard-gamble utility and the dimension general health perception was significant. The within-R2 was 12%. The second class represented 35% of the patients and showed significant coefficients for the dimensions social functioning and role limitations due to physical problems, which accounted for 80% of the variation. The overall percentage of variation explained by latent class analysis was 49%. The results suggest that patients with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease belong to a variety of classes, all with class-specific relationships between the standard-gamble utility and the RAND-36 health-status dimensions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8818120     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9601600306

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


  9 in total

1.  The effect of individually assessed preference weights on the relationship between holistic utilities and nonpreference-based assessment.

Authors:  S J Jansen; A M Stiggelbout; M A Nooij; J Kievit
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Critical limb ischemia and its impact on patient health preferences and quality of life-an international study.

Authors:  Giovanni Pisa; Thomas Reinhold; Eliot Obi-Tabot; Maria Bodoria; Bernd Brüggenjürgen
Journal:  Int J Angiol       Date:  2012-09

Review 3.  Qualitative research in medicine and health care: questions and controversy.

Authors:  R M Poses; A M Isen
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Health values of patients with bipolar disorder.

Authors:  J Tsevat; P E Keck; R W Hornung; S L McElroy
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Estimating importance weights for the IWQOL-Lite using conjoint analysis.

Authors:  A Brett Hauber; Ateesha F Mohamed; F Reed Johnson; Olatoye Oyelowo; Bradley H Curtis; Cheryl Coon
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-03-04       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Comparing the psychometric properties of preference-based and nonpreference-based health-related quality of life in coronary heart disease. Canadian Collaborative Cardiac Assessment Group.

Authors:  L Lalonde; A E Clarke; L Joseph; T Mackenzie; S A Grover
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Patterns of responses on health-related quality of life questionnaires among patients with HIV/AIDS.

Authors:  Ian Kudel; Stacey L Farber; Joseph M Mrus; Anthony C Leonard; Susan N Sherman; Joel Tsevat
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Quality-of-life loss of people admitted to burn centers, United States.

Authors:  Ted Miller; Soma Bhattacharya; William Zamula; Dennis Lezotte; Karen Kowalske; David Herndon; James Fauerbach; Loren Engrav
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-12-08       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Converting the SF-12 into the EQ-5D: an empirical comparison of methodologies.

Authors:  Ling-Hsiang Chuang; Paul Kind
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.