Literature DB >> 9161117

The effect of assessment method and respondent population on utilities elicited for Gaucher disease.

A E Clarke1, M K Goldstein, D Michelson, A M Garber, L A Lenert.   

Abstract

Measured preferences have been reported to vary with the method of elicitation and respondent population surveyed. We elicited utilities for Gaucher disease using a multimedia implementation of the time trade-off, standard gamble, and a conceptually different, largely untested approach, the risk-risk trade-off, from those who are healthy, those with a chronic illness and those with Gaucher disease. The risk-risk trade-off produced significantly lower utilities than the other two preference assessment methods and had the poorest test-retest reliability. The respondent's self-rated current health state utility was the most important determinant of utility values elicited by the time trade-off and standard gamble for the hypothetical health states. Our results do not support the use of our implementation of the risk-risk trade-off method. In eliciting preferences for hypothetical health states from the general population, the subjective rating of a respondent's own health state should be considered in determining representative population groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9161117     DOI: 10.1023/a:1026446302100

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  32 in total

1.  Utilities and quality-adjusted life years.

Authors:  G W Torrance; D Feeny
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 2.188

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

Review 3.  Methods for quality adjustment of life years.

Authors:  E Nord
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 4.  Gaucher's disease.

Authors:  E Beutler
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1991-11-07       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 5.  Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life.

Authors:  G W Torrance
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

6.  Effects of framing and level of probability on patients' preferences for cancer chemotherapy.

Authors:  A M O'Connor
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability.

Authors:  J J Bartko
Journal:  Psychol Rep       Date:  1966-08

8.  Comparison of the rating scale and the standard gamble in measuring patient preferences for outcomes of gallstone disease.

Authors:  E B Bass; E P Steinberg; H A Pitt; R I Griffiths; K D Lillemoe; G P Saba; C Johns
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1994 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors.

Authors:  D G Fryback; E J Dasbach; R Klein; B E Klein; N Dorn; K Peterson; P A Martin
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1993 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  Describing health states. Methodologic issues in obtaining values for health states.

Authors:  H Llewellyn-Thomas; H J Sutherland; R Tibshirani; A Ciampi; J E Till; N F Boyd
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1984-06       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  19 in total

1.  Quality of life assessment in adults with type 1 Gaucher disease.

Authors:  B J Masek; K B Sims; C M Bove; M S Korson; P Short; D K Norman
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 4.147

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.  Use of the internet to study the utility values of the public.

Authors:  Leslie A Lenert; Ann E Sturley
Journal:  Proc AMIA Symp       Date:  2002

4.  Evidence for the rapid construction of preference during utility assessments.

Authors:  Jonathan Bennett; Robert F Nease; Walton Sumner
Journal:  Proc AMIA Symp       Date:  2002

5.  Testing subject comprehension of utility questionnaires.

Authors:  Deborah G Dobrez; Elizabeth A Calhoun
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Estimation and comparison of derived preference scores from the SF-36 in lung transplant patients.

Authors:  Francis S Lobo; Cynthia R Gross; Barbara J Matthees
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  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

8.  A combined qualitative method for testing an interactive risk communication tool.

Authors:  Jessica S Ancker; Rita Kukafka
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2007-10-11

9.  Thirty down, only ten to go?! Awareness and influence of a 10-year time frame in TTO.

Authors:  F E van Nooten; X Koolman; J J V Busschbach; W B F Brouwer
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2013-08-14       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Agreement between prostate cancer patients and their clinicians about utilities and attribute importance.

Authors:  Arthur S Elstein; Gretchen B Chapman; Joan S Chmiel; Sara J Knight; Cheeling Chan; Robert B Nadler; Timothy M Kuzel; Amy K Siston; Charles L Bennett
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.377

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.