Methodological issues of patient utility measurement experience from two clinical trials

Medical Care

Volumn 33, Issue 9, 1995, Pages 922-937

  Rutten van Mölken, Maureen P M H ^a   Bakker, Carla H ^b   van Doorslaer, Eddy K A ^c   der Linden, Sjef van ^b  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Methodology; Outcome; Rating scale; Standard gamble; Trials; Utility

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; ATTITUDE TO DEATH; CLINICAL TRIAL; COGNITION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; EMOTION; FEMALE; FIBROMYALGIA; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREGNANCY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK; STANDARD; TECHNIQUE;

ADULT; ATTITUDE; ATTITUDE TO DEATH; COGNITION; EMOTIONS; FEMALE; FIBROMYALGIA; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; MALE; METHODS; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PREGNANCY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK; SPONDYLITIS, ANKYLOSING;

EID: 0029372066     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: 15371948     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199509000-00004     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Feeny D, Labelle R, Torrance GW. Integrating economic evaluations and quality of life assessments. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of life assessment in clinical trials, ltd. New York, NY: Raven Press, 1990.
2. Bell MJ, Bombardier C, Tugwell P. Measurement of functional status, quality of life and utility in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1990;33:591.
3. Gerard K. Cost-utility in practice: A policy maker’s guide to the state of the art. Health Policy 1992;21:249.
4. Rosser R, Kind P. A scale of valuations of states of illness: is there a social consensus? Int J Epidemiology 1978;7:347.
5. Kaplan RM, Bush JW. Health status: Types of validity and the index of well-being. Health Serv Res 1976;478.
6. Torrance GW, Boyle MH, Horwood SP. Application of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Oper Res 1982;30:1042.
7. Bombardier C, Ware J, Russell IJ, Larson M, Chalmers A, Read JL, and the Auranofin Cooperating Group. Auranofin therapy and quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Results of a multicenter trial. Am J Med 1986;81:565.
8. Thompson MS, Read JL, Hutchings HC, Paterson M, Harris ED. The cost effectiveness of Auranofin: Results of a randomized clinical trial. J Rheumatol 1988;15:35.
9. Mehrez A, Gafni A. Quality-adjusted life years, utility theory, and health-years equivalents. Med Decis Making 1989;9:142.
10. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. A review. J Health Econ 1986;5:1.
11. Neumann Von J, Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behavior. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1947.
12. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences-I: Measurement strategies. J Clin Epidemiol 1989;42:345.
13. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences-II: Scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol 1989;42:459.
14. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences-III: Population and context effects. J Clin Epidemiol 1989;42:585.
15. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences-IV: Progress and a research agenda. J Clin Epidemiol 1989;42:675.
16. Mulley AG. Assessing patients’utilities. Can the ends justify the means? Med Care 1989;27: S269.
17. Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, et al. Preferences for health outcomes: comparisons of assessment methods. Med Decis Making 1984;4:315.
18. Torrance GW. Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio Econ Plan Sci 1976;10:129.
19. Wolfson AD, Sinclair AJ, Bombardier C, McGreer. Preference measurement for functional status in stroke patients: Interrater and intertechnique comparisons. In: Kane RL, Kane RA, eds. Values and Long-Term Care. Lexington, KY: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Company, 1982.
20. Hellinger FJ. Expected utility theory and risky choices with health outcomes. Med Care 1989;27:273.
21. Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R, Ciampi A, Till JE, Boyd NF. The measurement of patients’values in medicine. Med Decis Making 1982;2:449.
22. Hidding A, van der Linden SJ, Boers M, Gielen X, Kester A, de Witte L, Dijkmans B, Moolenburgh D. Is group physical therapy superior to individual therapy in ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Care Res 1993;6:117.
23. Van Santen-Hoeufft M, Bolwijn P, Van der Linden SJ. Effectiveness of fitness and biofeedback training in fibromyalgia. Submitted.
24. Wolfe F, Smythe HA, Yunus MB, et al. The American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria for the classification of fibromyalgia. Report of the multicenter criteria committee. Arthritis Rheum 1990;31:1135.
25. Linden van der SJ, Valkenburg HA, Cats A. Evaluation of diagnostic criteria for ankylosing spondylitis. A proposal for modificration of the New York criteria. Arthritis Rheum 1984;27:361.
26. Bennett K, Torrance G. Methodologic challenges in the development of utility measures of health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis. Controlled Clin Trials 1991, 12:1183.
27. Bakker CH, Rutten-van Mölken M, Van Doorslaer E, Bennett K, Van der Linden SJ. Health related utility measurement in rheumatology: An introduction. Patient Education and Counseling 1993;20:145.
28. Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1989;5:559.
29. Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV. Clinical Decision Analysis. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Company, 1980.
30. Norusis/SPSS Inc. Advanced Statistics SPSS/PC+. Chicago, IL: Norusis/SPSS Inc, 1988.
31. Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Controlled Clin Trials 1991;12:142S.
32. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales. A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1989;83.
33. Kaplan RM, Bush JW, Berry CC. Health status index: category ratings versus magnitude estimation for measuring levels of well being. Med Care 1979;17:501.
34. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory. An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979;47:263.
35. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981, 211:453.
36. O’Brien BJ, Elswood J, Calin A. Willingness to accept risk in the treatment of rheumatic disease. J Epid Comm Health 1990;44:249.
37. Loomes G, Sugden R. Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Econ J 1982;92:805.
38. Loomes G, Sugden R. Some implications of the more general form of regret theory. J Economic Theory 1987;41:270.
39. Loomes G, Starmer C, Sugden R. Observing violations of transitivity by experimental methods. Econometrica 1991;59:425.
40. O’Connor AM, Boyd NE, Till JE. Methodological problems in assessing preferences for alternative therapies in oncology: The influence of preference elicitation technique, position order and test-retest error on the preferences for alternative cancer drug therapies. Nursing research: science for quality care. Proceedings of the 10th National Nursing Research Conference. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto, 1985:49.
41. Christensen-Szalanski JJJ. Discount functions and the measurement of patients’values. Women’s decisions during childbirth. Med Decis Making 1984;4:46.
42. Bakker C, Rutten-van Mölken M, Vhn Doorslaer E, Bennett K, Vm der Linden SJ. Feasibility of utility assessment by rating scale and standard gamble in ankylosing spondylitis or fibromyalgia. J Rheumatol, 1994.1994;21:269.
43. Bleichrodt H. Testing the validity of expected utility theory in health state valuation: Some experimental results. Institute for Medical Technology Assessment paper no 93.23. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Erasmus University of Rotterdam, 1993.
44. Haig THB, Scott DA, Wickett LI. The rational zero point for an illness index with ratio properties. Med Care 1986;24:113.
45. The EuroQol Group. A new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199
46. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Can Med Assoc J 1992;146:473.
47. Homberger JC, Redelmeier DA, Petersen J. Variability among methods to assess patients’well-being and consequent effect on a costeffectiveness analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45:505.
48. Nord E. The validity of a visual analogue scale in determining social utility weights for health states. Int J Health Planning and Management 1991;6:23