Being there is important, but getting there matters too: The role of path in the valuation process

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 323-337

  Goldberg, Julie H ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision analytic models; Erectile dysfunction; Health state; Patient behavior; Utility assessments

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AGING; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIABETES MELLITUS; ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PROSTATE CANCER; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT FAILURE;

AGED; DECISION MAKING; ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; IMPOTENCE; MALE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 33745889967     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06291680     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Beck J, Kattan M, Miles B. A critique of the decision analysis for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 1994;152:1894-9.
2. Cowen M, Cahill D, Kattan M, Miles B. The value or utility of prostate cancer states. Proc Am Urol Assoc. 1996;155:376A.
3. Fleming C, Wasson J, Albertsen P, Barry M, Wennberg J. A decision analysis of alternative treatment strategies for clinically localized prostate cancer. Prostate Patient Outcomes Research Team. JAMA. 1993;269:2650-8.
4. Kattan M, Cowen M, Miles B. A decision analysis for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12:299-305.
5. Potosky A, Davis W, Hoffman R, et al. Five-year outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:1358-67.
6. Elkin E, Cowen M, Cahill D, Steffel M, Kattan M. Preference assessment method affects decision-analytic recommendations: a prostate cancer treatment example. Med Decis Making. 2004;24:504-10.
7. Stewart S, Lenert L, Bhatnagar V, Kaplan R. Utilities for prostate cancer health states in men aged 60 and older. Med Care. 2005;43:347-55.
8. Nease R, Kneeland T, O'Connor G, et al. Variation in patient utilities for outcomes of the management of chronic stable angina: implications for clinical practice guidelines. JAMA. 1995;273:1185-90.
9. Patrick D, Chiang Y. Measurement of health outcomes in treatment effectiveness evaluations: conceptual and methodological challenges. Med Care. 2000;38:II-14-25.
10. Testa M. Interpretation of quality-of-life outcomes: issues that affect magnitude and meaning. Med Care. 2000;38:II-166-74.
11. Moayyedi P, Mason J. Cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses: how did we get here and where are we going? Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;16:527-34.
12. Cowen M, Miles B, Cahill D, Geisler RB, Beck JR, Kattan M. The danger of applying group-level utilities in decision analyses of the treatment of localized prostate cancer in individual patients. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:376-80.
13. Chapman GB, Elstein AS, Kuzel T, et al. Prostate cancer patients' utility for health states: how it looks depends on where you stand. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:278-86.
14. Ashby J, O'Hanlon M, Buxton J. The time trade-off technique: how do the valuations of breast cancer patients compare to those of other groups? Qual Life Res. 1994;3:257-65.
15. Boyd N, Sutherland H, Heasman K, Tritchler D, Cummings B. Whose utilities for decision analysis? Med Decis Making. 1990;10:58-67.
16. Krahn M, Ritvo P, Irvine J, et al. Patient and community preferences for outcomes in prostate cancer: implications for clinical policy. Med Care. 2003;41:153-64.
17. Hays R, Sui A, Keeler E, et al. Long-term care residents' preferences for health states on the Quality of Well-Being scale. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:254-61.
18. Sheriff R, Ubel P, Smith D. Former patients give lower utility ratings for colostomy than do current patients: evidence for a theory driven recall bias. Presented at: annual meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making; 17-20 October 2004; Atlanta, GA.
19. von der Donk J, Levendag P, Kuijpers A, et al. Patient participation in clinical decision-making for treatment of T3 laryngeal cancer: a comparison of state and process utilities. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13:2369-78.
20. Jansen S, Kievit J, Nooij M, Stiggelbout A. Stability of patients' preferences for chemotherapy: the impact of experience. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:295-306.
21. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland H, Thiel E. Do patients' evaluations of a future health state change when they actually enter that state? Med Care. 1993;31:1002-12.
22. Wittenberg E, Winer E, Weeks J. Patient utilities for advanced cancer: effect of current health on values. Med Care. 2005;43:173-81.
23. Howard R. In praise of the old time religion. In: Edwards W, ed. Utility Theories: Measurements and Applications. Boston: Kluwer Academic; 2000. p 27-56.
24. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47:263-91.
25. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values and frames. Am Psychol. 1984;39:341-50.
26. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Thiel E, McGreal M. Cancer patients' evaluations of their current health states: the influences of expectations, comparisons, actual health status, and mood. Med Decis Making. 1992;12:115-22.
27. Malloy T, Wigton R, Meeske J, Tape T. The influence of treatment descriptions on advance medical directive decisions. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992;40:1255-60.
28. Mazur D, Hickam D. The influence of physician explanations on patient preferences about future health-care states. Med Decis Making. 1997;17:56-60.
29. Bull F, Kreuter M, Scharff D. Effects of tailored, personalized and general health messages on physical activity. Patient Educ Couns. 1999;36:181-92.
30. Llewellyn-Thomas H, McGreal M, Thiel E. 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.
31. Schneider T, Salovey P, Apanovitch A, et al. The effects of message framing and ethnic targeting on mammography use among low-income women. Health Psychol. 2001;20:256-66.
32. Stigglebout A. Assessing patients' preferences. In: Chapman G, Sonnenberg F, eds. Decision Making in Health Care: Theory, Psychology, and Application. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
33. Weinstein M, Fineberg H. Clinical Decision Analysis. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders; 1980.
34. Litwin M, Hays R, Fink A, Ganz P, Leake B, Brook R. The UCLA Prostate Cancer Index: development, reliability, and validity of a health-related quality of life measure. Med Care. 1998;36:1002-12.
35. Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller S. SF-12: How to Score the SF-12 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1995.
36. Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller S. A 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12): construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;32:220-33.
37. Baron J. Thinking and Deciding. 3rd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
38. Krahn M, Ritvo P, Irvine J, et al. Construction of the Patient-Oriented Prostate Utility Scale (PORPUS): a multiattribute health state classification system for prostate cancer. J Clin Epidem. 2000;53:920-30.