Estimating general-population utilities using one binary-gamble question per respondent

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 381-390

  Bosch, Johanna L ^b   Hammitt, James K ^b   Weinstein, Milton C ^b   Hunink, Maria G M ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Peripheral arterial occlusive disease, intermittent claudication; Quality of life; Standard gamble; Utility assessment

Indexed keywords

AMPUTATION; ARTICLE; DEATH; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INTERMITTENT CLAUDICATION; INTERVIEW; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; POPULATION RESEARCH; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ADULT; AGED; AMPUTATION; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HUMANS; INTERMITTENT CLAUDICATION; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; QUALITY OF LIFE; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0031662885     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9801800405     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, Weinstein MC. Cost - Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
2. Torrance GW, Boyle MH, Horwood SP. Application of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Oper Res. 1982;30:1043-68.
3. Torrance GW. Measurement of health-state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ. 1985:5:1-30.
4. Feeny DH, Torrance GW. Incorporating utility-based quality of life assessment measures in clinical trials: two examples. Med Care. 1989:27:S190-S204.
5. Bosch JL, Hunink MGM. The relationship between descriptive and valuational quality-of-life measures in patients with intermittent claudication. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:217-25.
6. Johannesson M, Jönsson B, Borgquist L. Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy - results of a Swedish pilot study. J Health Econ. 1991;10:461-74.
7. Johannesson M, Johansson P, Kriström B, Gerdtham U. Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy - further results. J Health Econ. 1993;12:95-108.
8. Kartman B, Andersson F, Johannesson M. Willingness to pay for reductions in angina pectoris attacks. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:248-53.
9. Johannesson M. Jönsson B. Economic evaluation in health care: is there a role for cost - benefit analysis? Health Policy. 1991;17:1-23.
10. Golan EH, Shechter M. Contingent valuation of supplemental health care in Israel. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:302-10.
11. O'Brien B, Viramontes JL. Willingness to pay: a valid and reliable measure of health-state preference? Med Decis Making. 1994;14:289-97.
12. Neumann PJ, Johannesson M. The willingness to pay for in vitro fertilization: a pilot study using contingent valuation. Med Decis Making. 1994;14:686-99.
13. Arrow KJ, Solow R, Portney P, Learner EE, Radner R, Schuman H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register. 1993;58:4602-14.
14. Goldstein MK, Clarke AE, Michelson D, Garber AM, Bergen MR, Lenert LA. Developing and testing a multimedia presentation of a health-state description. Med Decis Making. 1994;14:336-44.
15. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Tibishirani R, Ciampi A, Till JE, Boyd NF. Describing health states: methodologic issues in obtaining values for health states. Med Care. 1984;22:543-52.
16. Drummond MF. Discussion: Torrances's "utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life." J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:601-3.
17. McNeil BJ, Pauker SG, Sox HC, Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med. 1982;306:1259-62.
18. Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW. Multi-attribute health status classification systems: health utilities index. PharmacoEconomics. 1995;7:490-502.
19. Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, Boyle M. Multiattribute preference functions: health utilities index. PharmacoEconomics. 1995;7:503-20.
20. Kriström B. A non-parametric approach to the estimation of welfare measures in discrete response valuation studies. Land Economics. 1990;66:135-9.
21. Chestnut LG, Keller LR, Lambert WE, Rowe RD. Measuring heart partients' willingness to pay for changes in angina symptoms. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:65-77.
22. Boyd NF, Sutherland HJ, Haesman KZ, Tritchler DL, Cummings BJ. Whose utilities for decision analysis? Med Decis Making. 1990;10:58-67.
23. Sackett DL, Torrance GW. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chronic Dis. 1978;31:697-704.
24. Sculpher M, Michaels J, McKenna M, Minor J. Phase II medical laser technology assessment. The role of the laser in percutaneous arterial revascularization: a cost-utility analysis. Draft report to the Department of Health Research and Development Division as part of the medical laser technology assessment. United Kingdom, 1994.
25. Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinstein MC. Preferences for health outcomes: comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making. 1984;4:315-29.
26. Nord E. Methods for quality adjustment of life years. Soc Sci Med. 1992:34:559-69.
27. Weeks J, O'Leary J, Fairclough D, et al. The "Q-tility Index": a new tool for assessing health related quality of life and utilities in clinical trials and clinical practice. Proc ASCO. 1994;13:436.
28. Haneman WM, Loomis J, Kanninen B. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 1991;73:1255-61.
29. Cameron TA, Quiggin J. Estimation using contingent valuation data from a "dichotomous choice with follow-up" questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 1994;27:218-34.
30. Herriges JA, Shogren JF. Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 1996;30:112-31.