Quality of life and relative importance: A comparison of time trade-off and conjoint analysis methods in patients with age-related macular degeneration

British Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 91, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 766-772

  Aspinall, P A ^a,b   Hill, A R ^a,b   Dhillon, B ^a,b   Armbrecht, A M ^b   Nelson, P ^a   Lumsden, C ^a   Farini Hudson, E ^a   Brice, R ^c   Vickers, A ^c   Buchholz, P ^c,d  

^a HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b PRINCESS ALEXANDRA EYE PAVILION   (United Kingdom)

^c Adelphi International Research   (United Kingdom)

^d ALLERGAN PLC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; BINOCULAR VISION; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DISEASE SEVERITY; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RETINA MACULA DEGENERATION; UNITED KINGDOM; VISION; VISUAL IMPAIRMENT;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; MACULAR DEGENERATION; MALE; QUALITY OF LIFE; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; VISION, BINOCULAR; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 34249781395     PISSN: 00071161     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2006.104679     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Mangione CM, Phillips RS, Seddon JM, et al. Development of the activities of daily vision scale. A measure of visual functional status. Med Care 1992,30:1126.
2. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD, et al. The VF-14. An index of functional impairment in patients with cataract. Arch Ophthalmol 1994;112:630-8.
3. Cassard SD, Patrick L, Damiano AM, et al. Reproducibility and responsiveness of the VF-14. An index of functional impairment in patients with cataract. Arch Ophthalmol 1995;113:1508-13.
4. Mangione CM, Lee P, Gutierrez PR, et al. Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119:1050-8.
5. Hart PM, Chakravarthy U, Stevenson MR, et al. A vision specific functional index for use in patients with age related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol 1999;83:1115-20.
6. Massof RW. A systems model for low vision rehabilitation. II. Measurement of vision disabilities. Opt Vis Sci 1998;75:349-73.
7. National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal, Report April 2004 (Section 5. 5: valuing health effects, ).London:Department of Health, 2004:24.
8. Tversky A, Kahneman D. A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. In: Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A, eds. Judgement under uncertainty:heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982:163-78.
9. Hill AR. Making decisions in ophthalmology. In: Osborne N, Chader J, eds. Progress in retinal research. Vol 6 Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1986:207-44.
10. Brown GC, Sharma S, Brown M, et al. Utility values and age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 2000;118:47-81.
11. Brown MM. Brown GC, Sharma S, et al. Utility values and diabetic retinopathy. Am J Ophthalmol 1999;128:324-30.
12. Bass EB, Wills S, Scott IU, et al. Preference values for visual states in patients planning to undergo cataract surgery. Med Decis Making 1997;17:324-30.
13. Bird AC, Bressler NM, Bressler SB, et al. International classification and grading system for age related maculopathy and age related macular degeneration. The International ARM Epidemiological Study Group. Surv Ophthalmol 1995;39:367-74.
14. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. Mini-mental state. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975;12:189-98.
15. Wade DT. Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 1992.
16. Gold MR, Russell LE, Siegel JE. Cost effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
17. Redeimeier DA, Detsky AS. A clinician's guide to utility measurement (review). Prim Care 1995;22:271-80.
18. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal (review). J Health Econ 1986;5:1-30.
19. Stein JD, Brown MM, Brown GC, et al. Quality of life with macular degeneration: perceptions of patients, clinicians, and community members. Br J Ophthamol 2003;87:8-12.
20. Ryan M, Farrar SA. A pilot study using conjoint analysis to establish the views of users in the provision of orthodontic services in the Grampians, Health Economics Research Unit, Discussion paper no 07/94. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen, 1994.
21. Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes; an application to in vitro fertilisation. Soc Sci Med 1999;48:535-46.
22. Miguel FS, Ryan M, Mcintosh E. Methodological issues in the use of conjoint analysis in health care: an application to women's preferences for the treatment of menorrhagia, Health Economics Research Unit, Discussion paper no 06/97. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen, 1997.
23. Van der Pol M, Cairns J. Establishing patient preferences for blood transfusion support: an application of conjoint analysis. J Health Serv Res Policy 1998;3:70-6.
24. Singh J, Cuttler L, Shin M, et al. Medical decision making and the patient. Understanding preference patterns for growth hormone therapy using conjoint analysis. Med Care 1998;36:AS31-45.
25. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, et al. A utility analysis correlation with visual acuity: methodologies and vision in the better and poorer eyes. Int Ophthalmol 2001;24:123-7.
26. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, et al. Quality of life with visual acuity loss from diabetic retinopathy and age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:481-4.
27. Rubin GS, Munoz B, Bandeen-Roche K, et al. Monocular versus binocular visual acuity as measures of vision impairment and predictors of visual disability. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000;41:3327-34.
28. Johnson R, Conjoint analysis software, Sawtooth Software, 530 West Fir St, Sequin, WA 98382, USA, 2001 .http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com (accessed 5 Mar 2007).
29. Sharma S, Brown GC, Brown MM, et al. Validity of the time trade-off and standard gamble methods of utility assessment in retinal patients. Br J Ophthalmol 2002;86:493-6.
30. Hollands H, Lam M, Paper J, et al. Reliability of the time trade-off technique of utility assessment in patients with retinal disease. Can J Ophthalmol 2001;36:202-9.
31. Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S, et al. The reproducibility of ophthalmic utility values. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2001,91:199- 203.
32. Szeinbach SL, Barnes JH, McGhan WF, et al. Using conjoint analysis to evaluate health state preferences. Drug Inf J 1999;33:849-58.
33. Nelson P, Aspinall P, O'Brien C. Patients' perceptions of visual impairment in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1999;83:546-52.
34. Orme B. Sample size issues for conjoint analysis studies. Sawtooth Software: research paper series, Sequim, WA:Sawtooth Software, 1998.