Effects on preferences of violations of procedural invariance

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 473-481

  Lenert, Leslie A ^a,b   Treadwell, Jonathan R ^c  

^a VA SAN DIEGO HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO   (United States)

^c STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Computers; Cost effectiveness analysis; Decision analysis; Preferences; Standard gamble; Utility; Visual analog scale

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DEPRESSION; EDUCATION; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HEART ARRHYTHMIA; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; RACE DIFFERENCE; SCHIZOPHRENIA; SEX DIFFERENCE;

AGED; ARRHYTHMIA; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COMPUTERS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DEPRESSIVE DISORDER; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FAMILY; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; SCHIZOPHRENIA;

EID: 0032853129     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900415     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1953.
2. Nease R Jr. Do violations of the axioms of expected utility theory threaten decision analysis? Med Decis Making. 1996;16:399-403.
3. Lenert LA, Morss S, Goldstein MK, Garber AM. Measurement of the validity of utility elicitations performed by computer interview. Med Care. 1997;35:915-20.
4. 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.
5. Sugar C, Sturm R, Lee T, et al. Empirically Defined Health States for Depression from the SF-12. Health Services Research. 1998;33:911-28.
6. Hedlund JL, Vieweg BW. The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale: a comprehensive review. J Operational Psychiatry. 1980;11:49-65.
7. Mulley A Jr. Assessing patients' utilities: can the end justify the means? Med Care. 1989;27:S269-S281.
8. Bursztajn H, Hamm R. The clinical utility of utility assessment. Med Decis Making. 1982;2:161-5.
9. Lenert LA, Cher DJ, Goldstein MK, Bergen MR, Garber AM. Effects of search procedures on utility elicitations. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:76-83.
10. Hornberger J, Lenert LA. Variation among quality-of-life surveys. Theory and practice. Med Care. 1996;34:DS23-33.
11. Dolan P, Sutton M. Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:1519-30.
12. 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.
13. 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;273:1185-90.
14. Dolan P, Gidex C, Kind P, Williams A. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J Health Econ. 1996;15:209-31.
15. 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;33:922-37.
16. Lee T, Zeigler J, Sommi R, Mahmoud R, Lenert L. Preferences for health outcomes in schizophrenia: a pilot study of a multimedia instrument, [submitted.]