Literature DB >> 9456212

The effect of search procedures on utility elicitations.

L A Lenert1, D J Cher, M K Goldstein, M R Bergen, A Garber.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Elicited preferences for health states vary among scaling methods, manners of describing health states, and other features of the elicitation process. The authors examined the effects of changing the search procedure for a subject's utility on mean utility values.
METHODS: A randomized controlled trial of two search procedures (titration and "ping-pong") using two otherwise identical computer programs that describe health states related to Gaucher's disease, then measuring subjects' preferences.
SETTING: Paid, healthy volunteers recruited from the community through advertisements.
RESULTS: The mean time tradeoff (TTO) and standard gamble (SG) utility values for life with severe anemia and splenomegaly and life with chronic bone pain from Gaucher's disease were between 0.10 and 0.15 higher with the titration search procedure than with the ping-pong procedure. Effects of the search procedure were additive with variability due to scaling methods, resulting in mean differences in utility ratings for the same health state of as much as 0.28 among procedures and scaling methods. Effects of search procedures on utility values persisted on repeated testing at week 2 and week 3; there was no evidence of convergence to a single "true" utility value over time.
CONCLUSIONS: The procedure used to search for subjects' utility values strongly influences the results of preference-assessment experiments. Effects of search procedures persist on repeated testing. The results suggest that utility values are heavily influenced by, if not created during, the process of elicitation. Thus, utility values elicited using different search procedures may not be directly comparable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9456212     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9801800115

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


  34 in total

Review 1.  Valuing health-related quality of life. Issues and controversies.

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

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

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

Review 3.  The importance of patient preferences in treatment decisions--challenges for doctors.

Authors:  Rebecca E Say; Richard Thomson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-09-06

4.  Time trade-off and attitudes toward euthanasia: implications of using 'death' as an anchor in health state valuation.

Authors:  Liv A Augestad; Kim Rand-Hendriksen; Knut Stavem; Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-06-08       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Vision and quality-of-life.

Authors:  G C Brown
Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc       Date:  1999

6.  Rhinitis Symptom Utility Index (RSUI) in Chinese subjects: a multiattribute patient-preference approach.

Authors:  Phoebe S Y Lo; Michael C F Tong; Dennis A Revicki; Ching Chyi Lee; John K S Woo; Henry C K Lam; C Andrew van Hasselt
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  The precision of health state valuation by members of the general public using the standard gamble.

Authors:  Ken Stein; Matthew Dyer; Ruairidh Milne; Alison Round; Julie Ratcliffe; John Brazier
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-03-03       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Quality-of-life research on the Internet: feasibility and potential biases in patients with ulcerative colitis.

Authors:  R M Soetikno; R Mrad; V Pao; L A Lenert
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  1997 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 9.  Clinical and economic issues in the treatment of advanced breast cancer with bisphosphonates.

Authors:  Nicola Lucio Liberato; Monia Marchetti; Giovanni Barosi
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 3.923

10.  Preference values associated with stage III colon cancer and adjuvant chemotherapy.

Authors:  Jennie H Best; Louis P Garrison; William Hollingworth; Scott D Ramsey; David L Veenstra
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.