Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade-off responses

Health Economics

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 171-181

  Schwarzinger, Michaël ^a,b   Lanoë, Jean Louis ^b   Nord, Erik ^c   Durand Zaleski, Isabelle ^a  

^a HENRI MONDOR HOSPITAL   (France)

^b BICÊTRE HOSPITAL   (France)

^c NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (Norway)

Author keywords

Consistency; Cost effectiveness analysis; DALY; Euroqol; Framing; Person trade off

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHRONIC DISEASE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DEATH; DISEASE SEVERITY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH STATUS; PATIENT CARE; POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUESTIONNAIRE; RATING SCALE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SOCIAL ASPECT;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; PARIS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 1142263239     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.808     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press: New York, 1996.
2. Drummond MF, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
3. Harris J. QALYfying the value of life. J Med Ethics 1987; 13(3): 117-123.
4. Klevit HD, Bates AC, Castanares T, Kirk EP, Sipes-Metzler PR, Wopat R. Prioritization of health care services. A progress report by the Oregon Health Services Commission. Arch Intern Med 1991; 151(5): 912-916.
5. Tengs TO, Meyer G, Siegel JE, Pliskin JS, Graham JD, Weinstein MC. Oregon's Medicaid ranking and cost-effectiveness: is there any relationship? Med Decision Making 1996; 16(2): 99-107.
6. Hadorn DC. Setting health care priorities in Oregon. Cost-effectiveness meets the rule of rescue. J Am Math Soc 1991; 265(17): 2218-2225.
7. Ham C. Priority setting in health care: learning from international experience. Health Policy 1997; 42(1): 49-66.
8. Murray CJ, Evans DB, Acharya A, Baltussen RM. Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 2000; 9(3): 235-251.
9. Graham JD, Corso PS, Morris JM, Segui-Gomez M, Weinstein MC. Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of clinical and public health measures. Annu Rev Public Health 1998; 19: 125-152.
10. Briggs AH, Gray AM. Handling uncertainty in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions. Br Med J 1999; 319(7210): 635-638.
11. Willan AR, O'Brien BJ. Sample size and power issues in estimating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from clinical trials data. Health Econ 1999; 8(3): 203-211.
12. Hutubessy RC, Baltussen RM, Evans DB, Barendregt JJ, Murray CJ. Stochastic league tables: communicating cost-effectiveness results to decision-makers. Health Econ 2001; 10(5): 473-477.
13. Wagstaff A. QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade-off [published erratum appears in J Health Econ 1993; 12(2): 237]. J Health Econ 1991; 10(1): 21-41.
14. Williams A. Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the 'fair innings' argument. Health Econ 1997; 6(2): 117-132.
15. Nord E, Pinto JL, Richardson J, Menzel P, Ubel P. Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes [published erratum appears in Health Econ 1999; 8(6): 559]. Health Econ 1999; 8(1): 25-39.
16. Nord E. Methods for quality adjustment of life years. Soc Sci Med 1992; 34(5): 559-569.
17. Nord E. The validity of a visual analogue scale in determining social utility weights for health states. Int J Health Plann Manage 1991; 6(3): 234-242.
18. Nord E. Unjustified use of the Quality of Well-Being Scale in priority setting in Oregon. Health Policy 1993; 24(1): 45-53.
19. Nord E, Richardson J, Macarounas-Kirchmann K. Social evaluation of health care versus personal evaluation of health states. Evidence on the validity of four health-state scaling instruments using Norwegian and Australian surveys. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1993; 9(4): 463-478.
20. Nord E. The person-trade-off approach to valuing health care programs. Med Decision Making 1995; 15(3): 201-208.
21. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Scanlon D, Kamlet M. Individual utilities are inconsistent with rationing choices: A partial explanation of why Oregon's cost-effectiveness list failed. Med Decision Making 1996; 16(2): 108-116.
22. Nord E. Health status index models for use in resource allocation decisions. A critical review in the light of observed preferences for social choice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12(1): 31-44.
23. Pinto Prades JL. Is the person trade-off a valid method for allocating health care resources? Health Econ 1997; 6(1): 71-81.
24. Richardson J, Nord E. The importance of perspective in the measurement of quality-adjusted life years. Med Decision Making 1997; 17(1): 33-41.
25. Pinto-Prades JL, Lopez-Nicolas A. More evidence of the plateau effect: a social perspective. Med Decision Making 1998; 18(3): 287-294.
26. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Scanlon D, Kamlet M. Value measurement in cost-utility analysis: explaining the discrepancy between rating scale and person trade-off elicitations. Health Policy 1998; 43(1): 33-44.
27. Murray CJ. Rethinking DALYs. In The Global Burden of Disease, Vol 1: a Comprehensive Assessment of Mortality and Disability from Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors in 1990 and projected to 2020, Murray CJ, Lopez AD (eds). Harvard University Press: Cambridge: 1996; 1-99.
28. Murray CJ, Lopez AD. Regional patterns of disability-free life expectancy and disability- adjusted life expectancy: global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet 1997; 349(9062): 1347-1352.
29. Stouthard ME, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ, on behalf of the Dutch Disability Weights Group. Disability weights for diseases: a modified protocol and results for a Western European region. Eur J Public Health 2000; 10: 24-30.
30. Melse JM, Essink-Bot ML, Kramers PG, Hoeymans N. A national burden of disease calculation: Dutch disability-adjusted life-years. Dutch Burden of Disease Group. Am J Public Health 2000; 90(8): 1241-1247.
31. Schopper D, Torres AM, Pereira J, et al. Setting health priorities in a Swiss canton: what do different methods tell us? J Epidemiol Community Health 2000; 54(5): 388-393.
32. Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, Harper R, Booth A. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 1999; 3(9): 1-164.
33. Brazier J, Deverill M. A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: learning from psychometrics. Health Econ 1999; 8(1): 41-51.
34. Ubel PA, Richardson J, Menzel P. Societal value, the person trade-off, and the dilemma of whose values to measure for cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 2000; 9(2): 127-136.
35. Green C. On the societal value of health care: what do we know about the person trade-off technique? Health Econ 2001; 10(3): 233-243.
36. Baron J, Ubel PA. Sources of inconsistency in health-state utility judgments. 1999. http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~baron/pprs.html [September 5, 2002].
37. Patrick DL, Bush JW, Chen MM. Methods for measuring levels of well-being for a health status index. Health Serv Res 1973; 8(3): 228-245.
38. Nord E. The trade-off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost-value analysis of health care. Health Policy 1993; 24(3): 227-238.
39. Olsen JA. Persons vs years: two ways of eliciting implicit weights. Health Econ 1994; 3(1): 39-46.
40. Dolan P, Green C. Using the person trade-off approach to examine differences between individual and social values. Health Econ 1998; 7(4): 307-312.
41. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37(1): 53-72.
42. Dolan P, Kind P. Inconsistency and health state valuations. Soc Sci Med 1996; 42(4): 609-615.
43. Sackett DL, Torrance GW. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chronic Dis 1978; 31(11): 697-704.
44. Conover WJ. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. (2nd edn). John Wiley & Sons: New York; 1980.
45. Boyle KJ, Bishop RC, Welsh MP. Starting point bias in contingent valuation bidding games. Land Econ 1985; 61(2): 188-194.
46. Baron J, Wu Z, Brennan DJ, Weeks C, Ubel PA. Analog scale, ratio judgment and person trade-off as utility measures: biases and their correction. J Behav Decision Making 2001; 14: 17-34.
47. Rodriguez-Miguez E, Pinto-Prades JL. Measuring the social importance of concentration or dispersion of individual health benefits. Health Econ 2002; 11(1): 43-53.