Invariance and inconsistency in utility ratings

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 158-167

  Bravata, Dena M ^a   Nelson, Lorene M ^a   Garber, Alan M ^a,b   Goldstein, Mary K ^a,b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b VA PALO ALTO HEALTH CARE SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

Activities of daily living; Quality of life; Utility theory

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; FEMALE; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INDEPENDENCE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MINI MENTAL STATE EXAMINATION; QUALITY OF LIFE; RACE; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ATTITUDE TO DEATH; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CALIFORNIA; FEMALE; GERIATRIC ASSESSMENT; HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS; MALE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUALITY OF LIFE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SELF CONCEPT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 15744368000     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05275399     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Badia X, Roset M, Herdman M. Inconsistent responses in three preference-elicitation methods for health states. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49:943-50.
2. Lenert LA, Cher DJ, Goldstein MK, Bergen MR, Garber A. The effect of search procedures on utility elicitations. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:76-83.
3. Lenert LA, Morss S, Goldstein MK, Bergen MR, Faustman WO, Garber AM. Measurement of the validity of utility elicitations performed by computerized interview. Med Care. 1997;35;915-20.
4. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences-IV: progress and a research agenda. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:675-85,
5. Llewellyn-Thomas HA, McGreal MJ, Thiel EC. Cancer patients' decision making and trial-entry preferences: the effects of "framing" information about short-term toxicity and long-term survival. Med Decis Making. 1995;15:4-12.
6. Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinstein MC. Preferences for health outcomes: comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making. 1984;4:315-29.
7. Eraker SA, Sox HC Jr. Assessment of patients' preferences for therapeutic outcomes. Med Decis Making. 1981;1:29-39.
8. 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.
9. Lenert LA, Sturley A, Rupnow M. Toward improved methods for measurement of utility: automated repair of errors in elicitations. Med Decis Making. 2003;23:67-75.
10. Giesler RB, Ashton CM, Brody B, et al. Assessing the performance of utility techniques in the absence of a gold standard. Med Care. 1999;37:580-8.
11. Souchek J, Stacks JR, Brody B, et al. A trial for comparing methods for eliciting treatment preferences from men with advanced prostate cancer: results from the initial visit. Med Care. 2000;38:1040-50.
12. Gafni A. The standard gamble method: what is being measured and how it is interpreted. Health Serv Res. 1994;29:207-24.
13. Nickerson CA. Assessing convergent validity of health-state utilities obtained using different scaling methods. Med Decis Making. 1999;19:487-98.
14. Lenert LA, Treadwell JR. Effects on preferences of violations of procedural invariance. Med Decis Making. 1999;19:473-81.
15. Goossens ME, Vlaeyen JW, Rutten-van Molken MP, van der Linden SM. Patient utilities in chronic musculoskeletal pain: how useful is the standard gamble method? Pain. 1999;80:365-75.
16. Lee TT, Ziegler JK, Sommi R, Sugar C, Mahmoud R, Lenert LA. Comparison of preferences for health outcomes in schizophrenia among stakeholder groups. J Psychiatr Res. 2000;34:201-10.
17. Lenert LA, Ziegler J, Lee T, Sommi R, Mahmoud R. Differences in health values among patients, family members, and providers for outcomes in schizophrenia. Med Care. 2000;38:1011-21.
18. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Moncur M, Gabriel S, Tosteson AN. Assessing values for health: numeracy matters. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:382-90.
19. Dolan P, Kind P. Inconsistency and health state valuations. Soc Sci Med. 1996;42:609-15.
20. Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 1993.
21. Patrick DL, Sittampalam Y, Somerville SM, Carter WB, Bergner M. A cross-cultural comparison of health status values. Am J Public Health. 1985;75:1402-7.
22. Sanders GD, Owens DK, Padian N, Cardinalli AB, Sullivan AN, Nease RF. A computer-based interview to identify HIV risk behaviors and to assess patient preferences for HIV-related health states. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1994:20-4.
23. Wang Q, Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G, Barr R. How robust is the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 utility function? Med Decis Making. 2002;22:350-8.
24. Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Barr RD, Zhang Y, Wang Q. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care. 1996;34:702-22.
25. Stalmeier PF, Goldstein MK, Holmes AM, et al. What should be reported in a methods section on utility assessment? Med Decis Making. 2001;21:200-7.
26. Katz S, Ford A, Moskowitz R, Jackson B, Jaffe M. Studies of illness in the aged: the index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA. 1963;185:94-9.
27. McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. Vol. 1, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
28. Goldstein MK, Miller DE, Davies S, Garber AM. Quality of life assessment software for computer-inexperienced older adults: multimedia utility elicitation for activities of daily living. Proc AMIA Symp. 2002:295-9.
29. Goldstein MK, Tsevat J. Applying utility assessment at the "bedside". In: Chapman G, Sonnenberg FA, eds. Decision Making in Health Care: Theory, Psychology, and Applications. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 2000.
30. Goldstein MK, Tsevat J. Assessing desirability of outcome states for medical decision making and cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Max M, Lynn J, eds. Symptom Research: Methods and Opportunities. Available from http://symptomresearch.nih.gov. National Institutes of Health; 2003.
31. NLTCS. Limitations in Activities of Daily Living among the Elderly: Data Analyses from the 1989 National Long-Term Care Survey (HHS-100-95-0017). Washington (DC): Administration on Aging, US Department of Health and Human Services; May 31, 1996.
32. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J Health Econ. 1996;15:209-31.
33. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD, Stewart AL, Hays RD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473-83.
34. Tsevat J, Cook EF, Green ML, et al. Health values of the seriously ill. SUPPORT investigators. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122:514-20.
35. Tengs TO, Lin TH. A meta-analysis of quality-of-life estimates for stroke. Pharmacoeconomics. 2003;21:191-200.
36. Tengs TO, Lin TH. A meta-analysis of utility estimates for HIV/AIDS. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:475-81.
37. Tengs TO, Wallace A. One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care. 2000;38:583-637.