Measuring preferences for schizophrenia outcomes with the time tradeoff method

Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 14-26

  Shumway, Martha ^a   Chouljian, Tandy L ^b   Battle, Cynthia L ^c  

^a SFGH   (United States)

^b Brown University ^*

^c BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL FEATURE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; DOMINANCE BEHAVIOR; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW; SCHIZOPHRENIA; TIME; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEALTH SERVICES NEEDS AND DEMAND; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT CARE TEAM; PSYCHOMETRICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SCHIZOPHRENIA; SCHIZOPHRENIC PSYCHOLOGY; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 12144276117     PISSN: 10943412     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF02287325     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences, I: measurement strategies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1989;42:345-354.
2. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences, II: scaling methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1989;42:459-471.
3. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences, III: population and context effects. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1989;42:585-592.
4. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences, IV: progress and a research agenda. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1989;42:675-685.
5. Gold MR, Patrick DL, Torrance GW, et al. Indentifying and valuing outcomes. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996:82-134.
6. Kaplan RM, Revicki DA. Methods for assessing relative importance in preference based outcome measures. Quality of Life Research. 1993;2:467-475.
7. Shumway M, Battle C. Clinicians' preferences for schizophrenia outcomes: a comparison of four methods. Schizophrenia Research. 1995;15:197.
8. Revicki D, Shakespeare A, Kind P. Preferences for schizophrenia-related health states: a comparison of patients, caregivers, and psychiatrists. International Clinical Psychopharmacology. 1996;11:101-108.
9. Chouinard G, Albright P. Economic and health state utility determinations for schizophrenic patients treated with risperidone or haloperidol. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology. 1997;17:298-307.
10. Shumway M, Chouljian T, Battle C. Stakeholder preferences for schizophrenia outcomes: an evaluation of assessment methods. Schizophrenia Research. 1997;24:258.
11. Awad AG, Voruganti LP. Cost-utility analysis in schizophrenia. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 1999;60(suppl 3):22-26.
12. Lee TT, Ziegler JK, Sommi R, et al. Comparison of preferences for health outcomes in schizophrenia among stakeholder groups. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 2000;34:201-210.
13. Lenert LA, Ziegler J, Lee T, et al. Differences in health values among patients, family members, and providers for outcomes in schizophrenia. Medical Care. 2000;38:1001-1021.
14. Shumway M. Preference weights for cost-outcome analyses of schizophrenia treatments: comparison of four stakeholder groups. Schizophrenia Bulletin. 2003;29:257-266.
15. Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Services Research. 1972;7:118-133.
16. Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. Journal of Chronic Disease. 1987;40:593-600.
17. Mohide EA, Torrance GW, Streiner DL, et al. Measuring the wellbeing of family caregivers using the time trade-off technique. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1988;41:475-482.
18. Shumway M, Sentell T, Chouljian T, et al. Assessing preferences for schizophrenia outcomes: comprehension and decision strategies in three assessment methods. Mental Health Services Research. 2003;5:121-135.
19. Giesler RB, Ashton CM, Brody B, et al. Assessing the performance of utility techniques in the absence of a gold standard. Medical Care. 1999;37:580-588.
20. Jansen SJT, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP, et al. Patients' utilities for cancer treatments: a study of the chained procedure for the standard gamble and time tradeoff. Medical Decision Mating. 1998;18:391-399.
21. Stavem K. Quality of life in epilepsy: comparison of four preference measures. Epilepsy Research. 1998;29:201-209.
22. Buckingham JK, Birdsall J, Douglas JG. Comparing three versions of the time tradeoff: time for a change? Medical Decision Making. 1996;16:335-347.
23. van Wijck EEE, Bosch JL, Hunink MGM. Time-tradeoff values and standard-gamble utilities assessed during telephone interviews versus face-to-face interviews. Medical Decision Making. 1998;18:400-405.
24. Committee on Quality Health Care in America, Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.
25. Creswell JW. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage; 2003.
26. Tashakkori A, Teddlie C. Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative And Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage; 1998.
27. Morse JM, Barrett M, Mayan M, Olson K, Spiers J. Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2002;1. Article 2. Available at: http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm/. Accessed July 17, 2002.
28. Shumway M, Chouljian TL, Rozewicz F. Paraphrase procedures for assessing comprehension of health outcome measures: an illustration from schizophrenia research. Evaluation and the Health Professions. 2003;26:73-85.
29. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Statistics of the United States, 1989. Vol 2. Sec 6 life tables. Washington, DC: Public Health Service; 1992.
30. Chestnut LG, Keller LR, Lambert WE, et al. Measuring heart patients' willingness to pay for changes in angina symptoms. Medical Decision Making. 1996;16:65-77.
31. Klose T. The contingent evaluation method in health care. Health Policy. 1999;47:97-123.
32. Lenert LA, Cher DJ, Goldstein MK, et al. The effect of search procedures on utility elicitations. Medical Decision Making. 1998;18:76-83.
33. Lenert L, Sturley A, DiClemente R, et al. Trading time and risking life: what works for patients. Paper presented at: The Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making; October 20, 2002; Baltimore, Md.
34. Fischer EP, Shumway M, Owen RR. Priorities of consumers, providers, and family members in the treatment of schizophrenia. Psychiatric Services. 2002;53:724-729.