Are health states 'timeless'? A case study of an acute condition: Post-chemotherapy nausea and vomiting

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 69-82

  Franic, Duska M ^a   Pathak, Dev S ^b   Gafni, Amiram ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

CEA; CUA; Post chemotherapy nausea and vomiting; QALYs; QoL; Standard gamble; Utility independence; Visual analogue scale

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ADULT; BREAST CANCER; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CHEMOTHERAPY INDUCED EMESIS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONFERENCE PAPER; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; NAUSEA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCORING SYSTEM; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

ACUTE DISEASE; ADULT; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; HEALTH; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS; MIDDLE AGED; MIDWESTERN UNITED STATES; NAUSEA; UNIVERSITIES; VALUE OF LIFE; VOMITING;

EID: 0037321257     PISSN: 13561294     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00381.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (36)

1. Badia X., Monserrat R., Herdman M. et al. (2001) A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade off values for EQ-5D health states. Medical Decision Making 21, 7-16.
2. Bala M.V., Wood L.L., Zarkin G.A., Norton E.C., Gafni A. & O'Brien B.J. (1999) Are health states 'timeless'? The case of the standard gamble method. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 52 (11), 1047-1053.
3. Bala M.V. & Zarkin G.A. (1999) Are QALYs an appropriate measure for valuing morbidity in acute diseases? Health Economic Letters 3 (2), 10-14.
4. Bernhard J., Hurny C., Coates A.S., Peterson H.E, Castigione-Gertsch M., Gelber R.D., Goldhirsch A., Senn H.J. & Rudenstam C.M. for the International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) (1997) Quality of life assessment in patients receiving adjuvant therapy for breast cancer: the IBCSG approach. Annals of Oncology 8, 825-835.
5. Bleichrodt H. & Johannesson M. (1996) The validity of QALYs: an experimental test of constant proportional tradeoff and utility independence. Medical Decision Making 17, 21-32.
6. Brazier J. & Deverill M. (1999) A checklist for judging preference based measures of health related quality of life: learning from psychometrics. Health Economics 8, 41-51.
7. Clarke A.E., Goldstein M.K., Michelson D., Garber A.M. & Lenert L.A. (1997) The effect of assessment method and respondent population on utilities elicited for Gaucher disease. Quality of Life Research 6, 169-184.
8. Coates A., Abraham S., Kaye S.B., Sowerbutts T., Frewin C., Fox R.M. & Tattersall M.H. (1983) On the receiving end - patient perception of the side effects of cancer chemotherapy. European Journal of Cancer and Clinical Oncology 19 (2), 203-208.
9. Cohen J. (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
10. Feeny D.H. & Torrance G.W. (1989) Incorporating utility based quality of life assessment measures in clinical trials. Medical Care 27 (3), S190-S204.
11. Franic D.M. (2000) Relating quality adjusted life years to contingent valuation: acute versus chronic conditions. PhD Thesis, The State University, Columbus, OH.
12. Furlong W., Feeny D., Torrance G.W., Barr R. & Horsman J. (June 1990) Guide to Design and Development of Health State Utility Instrumentation. Analysis Working Paper No. 90-9. McMaster University Center for Health Economics and Policy, Hamilton, Ontario.
13. Gafni A. (1994) The standard gamble method: what is being measured and how is it being interpreted. Health Services Research 29 (2), 207-224.
14. Gold M.R., Siegel J.E., Russell L.B. & Weinstein M.C. (1996) Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
15. Grunberg S.M., Boutin N., Ireland A., Miner S., Silveira J. & Ashikaga T. (1996) Impact of nausea and vomiting on quality of life as a visual analogue scale-derived utility score. Support Care Cancer 6 (4), 435-439.
16. Jansen S.J.T., Stigglebout A.M., Wakker P.P., Vliet Vlieland T.P.M., Leer J.W.H., Nooy M.A. & Kievit J. (1998) Patients utilities for cancer treatments: a study of the chained procedure for standard gamble and time trade off. Medical Decision Making 18, 391-399.
17. Kwong W.J. & Parasuraman T.V. (1999) Cost-effectiveness analysis of oral ondansetron and prochlorperazine for preventing nausea and vomiting after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Pharmacy Practice Management Quarterly 19 (1), 28-41.
18. Lenert L.A., Cher D.J., Goldstein M.K., Bergen M.R. & Garber A.M. (1998) The effect of search procedures on utility elicitations. Medical Decision Making 18, 76-83.
19. Lenert L.A., Morss S., Goldstein M.K., Bergen M.R., Faustman W.O. & Garber A.M. (1997) Measurement of the validity of utility elicitations as performed by computerized interview. Medical Care 35 (9), 915-920.
20. Levine A.M., Richardson J.L., Marks G. et al. (1987) Compliance with oral drug therapy in patients with hematologic malignancy. Journal of Clinical Oncology 5, 1469-1476.
21. Lindley C.M., Hirsch J.D., O'Neill C.V., Transau M.C., Gilbert C.S. & Osterhaus J.T. (1992) Quality of life consequences of chemotherapy induced emesis. Quality of Life Research 1, 331-340.
22. McNeil B.J., Weischelbaum R. & Pauker S.G. (1981) Tradeoffs between quality and quantity of life in laryngeal cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 305, 982-987.
23. Mehrez A. & Gafni A. (1989) Quality adjusted life years, utility theory, and health years equivalents. Medical Decision Making 9, 142-149.
24. Mitchell R.C. & Carson R.T (1989) Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington DC.
25. Osoba D., Zee B., Warr D., Latreille J., Kaizer L. & Pater J. (1997) Effect of postchemotherapy nausea and vomiting on health-related quality of life. Supportive Care in Cancer 5 (4), 307-313.
26. Pathak D.S. (1995) QALYs in health outcomes research: representation of real preferences or another numerical abstraction. Journal of Research Pharmaceutical Economics 6 (4), 3-27.
27. Patrick D.L., Starks H.E., Cain K.C., Uhlmann R.F. & Pearlman R.A. (1994) Measuring preferences for health states worse than death. Medical Decision Making 14, 9-18.
28. Pliskin J.S., Sheppard D.S. & Weinstein M.C. (1980) Utility functions for life years and health status. Operations Research 28, 206-224.
29. Richardson J.L., Marks G. & Levine A. (1988) The influence of symptoms and side effects of treatment on compliance with therapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology 6, 1746-1752.
30. Sackett D.L. & Torrance G.W. (1978) The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. Journal of Chronic Diseases 31 (11), 697-704.
31. Spector P.E. (1987) One group designs. In Research Designs (eds L. Sullivan & R. G. Niemi), pp. 28-39. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
32. Stigglebout A.M., Kiebert G.M., Kievit J., Leer J.W.H., Habbema J.D.F. & De Haes C.J.M. (1995) The utility of the time trade off method in cancer patients: feasibility and proportional trade-off. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 48 (10), 1207-1214.
33. Torrance G.W. (1976) Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Economic Planning and Science 10, 129-136.
34. Torrance G.W. (1982) Preferences for health states: a review of measurement values. In Clinical and Economic Evaluation of Perinatal and Development Medicine, pp. 37-45. Mead Johnson, Evansville, IN.
35. Torrance G.W. & Feeney D. (1989) Utilities and quality adjusted life years. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 5, 559-575.
36. Torrance G.W., Feeney D. & Furlong W. (2001) Visual analogue scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Medical Decision Making 21, 329-334.