The effect of search procedures on utility elicitations

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 76-83

  Lenert, Leslie A ^a   Cher, Daniel J ^b   Goldstein, Mary K ^b   Bergen, Merlynn R ^b   Garber, Alan ^b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Patient preferences; Ping pong; Search procedures; Titration; Utility elicitations

Indexed keywords

GLYCOGEN;

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; GAUCHER DISEASE; HUMAN; NORMAL HUMAN; PATIENT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RELIABILITY; TECHNIQUE;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CALIFORNIA; DECISION MAKING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; GAUCHER DISEASE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 0031982507     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9801800115     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Hornberger J, Lenert L. Variation among quality-of-life surveys. Mod Care. 1996;34(12 suppl):DS23-DS33.
2. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences-II: Scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:459-71.
3. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R, Ciampi A, Till JE, Boyd NF. Describing health states. Methodologic issues in obtaining values for health states. Med Care. 1984;22:543-52.
4. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R, Ciampi A, Till JE, Boyd NF. The measurement of patients' values in medicine. Med Decis Making. 1982;2:449-62.
5. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. 1974;185:1124-31.
6. Patrick D, Erickson P. Health Status and Health Policy: Quality of Life in Health Care Evaluation and Resource. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
7. Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R, et al. The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:89-102.
8. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ. 1986;5:1-30.
9. Tsevat J, Goldman L, Soukup J, et al. Stability of time-tradeoff utilities in survivors of myocardial infarction. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:161-5.
10. Percy M, Llewellyn-Thomas II. Assessing preferences about the DNR order: does it depend on how you ask? Med Decis Making. 1995;15:209-16.
11. Lenert LA, Michelson D, Flowers C, Bergen MR. IMPACT: an object-oriented graphical environment for construction of multimedia patient interviewing software. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1995;319-23.
12. Clarke A, Goldstein M, Michelson D, Garber A, Lenert L. The effect of assessment method and respondent population on utilities elicited for Gaucher disease. Quality of Life Res 1997; in press.
13. Morss SE, Lenert LA, Faustman WO. The side effects of antipsychotic drugs and patients' quality of life: patient education and preference assessment with computers and multimedia. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1993:17-21.
14. Lenert L, Toetikno R. Automated computer interviews to elicit utilities: potential applications in the treatment of deep venous thrombosis. J Am Med Informat Assoc. 1997;4:49-56.
15. Lenert L, Morss S, Goldstein M, Berken M, Garber A. Measurement of the validity of utility elicitations. Med Care. 1997;4:49-56.
16. 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.
17. Slovic P. The construction of preference. Am Psychologist. 1995;50:364-71.