Utilities for prostate cancer health states in men aged 60 and older

Medical Care

Volumn 43, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 347-355

  Stewart, Susan T ^a   Lenert, Leslie ^b   Bhatnagar, Vibha ^b   Kaplan, Robert M ^c,d  

^a NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH   (United States)

^b VA SAN DIEGO HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Preferences; Prostate; Prostate cancer; Ratings; Utilities

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; COMPUTER; CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; HEALTH STATUS; HORMONAL THERAPY; HUMAN; IMPOTENCE; LONG TERM CARE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PREDICTION; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RATING SCALE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; URINARY DYSFUNCTION; URINE INCONTINENCE;

AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; COLONIC DISEASES; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; IMPOTENCE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVATION; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; QUALITY OF LIFE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; URINARY INCONTINENCE;

EID: 17144412624     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000156862.33341.45     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Edwards BK, Howe HL, Ries LAG, et al. Annual Report to the Nation on the status of cancer, 1973-1999, featuring implications of age and aging on U.S. cancer burden. Cancer. 2002;94:2766-2792.
2. Bhatnagar V, Stewart ST, Bonney WW, et al. Treatment options for localized prostate cancer: quality adjusted life years and the effects of lead-time bias. Urology. 2004;62:103-109.
3. Lenert L, Kaplan RM. Validity and interpretation of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life. Med Care 2000;38(9 Suppl): II138-50.
4. Kaplan RM, Ganiats TG, Sieber WJ, et al. The Quality of Well-Being Scale: critical similarities and differences with SF-36. Int J Qual Health Care. 1998;10:509-520.
5. Cantor SB, Spann SJ, Volk RJ, et al. Prostate cancer screening: a decision analysis. J Fam Pract. 1995;41:33-41.
6. Kattan MW, Cowen ME, Miles BJ. A decision analysis for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12:299-305.
7. Cowen ME, Miles BJ, Cahill DF, et al. The danger of applying group-level utilities in decision analyses of the treatment of localized prostate cancer in individual patients. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:376-380.
8. Albertsen PC, Nease RF Jr, Potosky AL. Assessment of patient preferences among men with prostate cancer. J Urol. 1998;159:158-163.
9. Smith DS, Krygiel J, Nease RF Jr, et al. Patient preferences for outcomes associated with surgical management of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2002; 167:2117-2122.
10. Saigal CS, Gornbein J, Nease R, et al. Predictors of utilities for health states in early stage prostate cancer. J Urol. 2001;166:942-946.
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;38:1040-1050.
12. Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, et al. Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;7:490-502.
13. Anderson N, Zalinski J. Functional Measurement Approach to Self-Estimation in Multiattribute Evaluation. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1988.
14. Lenert LA. iMpact3: online tools for development of web sites for the study of Patients' preferences and utilities. Proc AMIA Symp 2000:1172.
15. Abdalla I, Basu A, Hellman S. An evidence-based analysis of the management of localized prostate cancer. Cancer J. 2002;8:40-46.
16. Anderson N. A Functional Theory of Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.; 1996.
17. Krahn M, Ritvo P, Irvine J, et al. Patient and community preferences for outcomes in prostate cancer: implications for clinical policy. Med Care. 2003;41:153-164.
18. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Jepson C. Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:599-607.
19. Menzel P, Dolan P, Richardson J, et al. The role of adaptation to disability and disease in health state valuation: a preliminary normative analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55:2149-2158.
20. 19a. 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.
21. Giesler RB, Ashton CM, Brody B, et al. Assessing the performance of utility techniques in the absence of a gold standard. Med Care. 1999; 37:580-588.
22. Slovic P. The construction of preference. Am Psychol. 1995;50:364-371.
23. Lenert LA, Treadwell JR. Effects on preferences of violations of procedural invariance. Med Decis Making. 1999;19:473-481.
24. Kaplan RM. Shared medical decision-making: a new paradigm for behavioral medicine. Ann Behav Med. 1999;21:1-9.
25. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK. The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial: a randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy versus expectant management for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Oncology (Huntingt). 1997;11:1133-9.