Measurement of the Validity of Utility Elicitations Performed by Computerized Interview

Medical Care

Volumn 35, Issue 9, 1997, Pages 915-920

  Lenert, Leslie A ^a   Morss, S ^a   Goldstein, M K ^a,b   Bergen, M R ^a   Faustman, W O ^b   Garber, A M ^a,b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b VA PALO ALTO HEALTH CARE SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

Antipsychotic drug therapy; Computers; Preferences; Utilities; Validity

Indexed keywords

NEUROLEPTIC AGENT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AKATHISIA; ARTICLE; CHEMICALLY INDUCED DISORDER; DECISION MAKING; DYSKINESIA; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIMEDIA; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; PARKINSON DISEASE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PSYCHOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCHIZOPHRENIA; STANDARD;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AKATHISIA, DRUG-INDUCED; ANTIPSYCHOTIC AGENTS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DYSKINESIA, DRUG-INDUCED; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIMEDIA; PARKINSON DISEASE, SECONDARY; PATIENT SATISFACTION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SCHIZOPHRENIA; SCHIZOPHRENIC PSYCHOLOGY; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 0031228835     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199709000-00004     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. McNeil B, Wichselbaum R, Pauker S. Speech and survival: Tradeoffs between quality and quantity of life in laryngeal cancer. N Engl J Med 1981;305:982.
2. O'Meara JJ, McNutt RA, Evans AT, Moore SW, Downs SM. A decision analysis of streptokinase plus heparin as compared to heparin alone for deep-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med 1994;330:1864.
3. Hornberger JC, Habraken H, Bloch DA. Minimum data needed on patient preferences for accurate, efficient medical decision making. Med Care 1995;33:297.
4. Nease RJ, Kneeland T, O'Connor GT, et al. Variation in patient utilities for outcomes of the management of chronic stable angina. Implications for clinical practice guidelines: Ischemic Heart Disease Patient Outcomes Research Team. JAMA 1995;273:1185. Comments.
5. Nease R Jr, Owens DK. A method for estimating the cost-effectiveness of incorporating patient preferences into practice guidelines. Med Decis Making 1994;14:382.
6. Bursztajn H, Hamm R. The clinical utility of Utility Assessment. Med Decis Making 1982;2:161.
7. Mulley A Jr, MD MPP. Assessing patients' utilities: Can the end justify the means? Med Care 1989;27: S269.
8. Froberg D, Kane R. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences. II: Scaling Methods. J Clin Epidemiol 1989;42:459.
9. Von Neumann J, Morgenstern G. Theory of games and economic behavior. 3rd edition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1953.
10. Lenert LA, Michelson D, Flowers C, Bergen MR. IMPACT: An object-oriented graphical environment for construction of multimedia patient interviews. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1995;(Symposium Supplement):319.
11. Morss S, Lenert L, Faustman W. The side effects of antipsychotic drugs and patients' quality of life: Patient education and utility assessment with computers and multimedia. In: Charles Sasfran M, ed. 17th Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care. Washington, DC: McGraw-Hill, 1993:17.
12. Rutten-van Molken MP, Bakker CH, van Doorslaer EK, van der Linden S. Methodological issues of patient utility measurement. Experience from two clinical trials. Med Care 1995;33:922.
13. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R, Ciampi A, Till JE, Boyd NF. Measurement of patients' values in medicine. Med Decis Making 1982;14:382.
14. Nease RE. Do violations of expected utility theory threaten decision analysis? Med Decis Making 1996;16:399.