Numeracy and the shortcomings of utility assessment in head and neck cancer patients

Head and Neck

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 401-407

  Schwartz, Seth R ^a   McDowell, Jennifer ^b   Yueh, Bevan ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b VA PUGET SOUND HEALTH CARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Function; Head and neck cancer; Numeracy; Quality of life; Utility

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER SURGERY; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HEAD AND NECK CARCINOMA; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RATING SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AGED; CARCINOMA, SQUAMOUS CELL; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; HEAD AND NECK NEOPLASMS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROBABILITY; PROGNOSIS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SAMPLING STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 2342576973     PISSN: 10433074     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hed.10383     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Terrell JE, Fisher SG, Wolf GT. Long-term quality of life after treatment of laryngeal cancer. The Veterans Affairs Laryngeal Cancer Study Group. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;124:964-971.
2. Deleyiannis FW, Weymuller EA Jr, Coltrera MD. Quality of life of disease-free survivors of advanced (stage III or IV) oropharyngeal cancer. Head Neck 1997;19:466-473.
3. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Moncur M, Gabriel S, Tosteson AN. Assessing values for health: numeracy matters. Med Decis Making 2001;21:382-390.
4. Nease RF Jr., Kneeland T, O'Connor GT, et al. Variation in patient utilities for outcomes of the management of chronic stable angina. Implications for clinical practice guidelines. JAMA 1995;273:1185-1190.
5. Nease RF Jr, Tsai R, Hynes LM, Littenberg B. Automated utility assessment of global health. Qual Life Res 1996; 5:175-182.
6. Patrick DL, Erickson P. Health status and health policy: allocating resources to health care. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993.
7. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:966-972.
8. Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making 2001;21:37-44.
9. Sheridan SL, Pignone M. Numeracy and the medical student's ability to interpret data. Eff Clin Pract 2002;5: 35-40.
10. List MA, Ritter-Sterr C, Lansky SB. A performance status scale for head and neck cancer patients. Cancer 1990;66: 564-569.
11. Weymuller EA Jr, Alsarraf R, Yueh B, Deleyiannis FV, Coltrerra MD. Analysis of the performance characteristics of the University of Washington Quality of Life instrument and its modification (UW-QOL-R). Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001;127:489-493.
12. Gazmararian JA, Baker DW, Williams MV, et al. Health literacy among Medicare enrollees in a managed care organization. JAMA 1999;281:545-551.
13. Williams MV, Parker RM, Baker DW, et al. Inadequate functional health literacy among patients at two public hospitals. JAMA 1995;274:1677-1682.
14. Lenert L, Kaplan RM. Validity and interpretation of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life. Med Care 2000;38(9 suppl):II138-150.
15. Morimoto T, Fukui T. Utilities measured by rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble: review and references for health care professionals. J Epidemiol 2002;12: 160-178.
16. Badia X, Roset M, Herdman M. Inconsistent responses in three preference-elicitation methods for health states. Soc Sci Med 1999;49:943-950.
17. Gold M, Franks P, Erickson P. Assessing the health of the nation. The predictive validity of a preference-based measure and self-rated health. Med Care 1996;34: 163-177.