The standard gamble showed better construct validity than the time trade-off

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 60, Issue 10, 2007, Pages 1029-1033

  Puhan, Milo A ^a,b   Schünemann, Holger J ^b,c,d   Wong, Eric ^e   Griffith, Lauren ^b   Guyatt, Gordon H ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c REGINA ELENA NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (Italy)

^d UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Health related quality of life; Irritable bowel syndrome; Preference based instruments; Standard gamble; Time trade off; Validity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IRRITABLE COLON; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCORING SYSTEM;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; IRRITABLE BOWEL SYNDROME; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE;

EID: 34548626715     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.001     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Bennet K.J. Measuring health state preferences and utilities: rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble techniques. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Chapter 27. 2nd edition (1996), Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, PA
2. Drummond M.F., O'Brien B., Stoddart G.L., and Torrance G.W. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd edition (1997), Oxford University Press, Oxford
3. Puhan M.A., Guyatt G.H., Montori V.M., Bhandari M., Devereaux P.J., Griffith L., et al. Limited reliability of marker states may explain lack of effect on measurement properties of utility instruments. J Clin Epidemiol 58 (2005) 458-465
4. Schunemann H.J., Griffith L., Stubbing D., Goldstein R., and Guyatt G.H. A clinical trial to evaluate the measurement properties of 2 direct preference instruments administered with and without hypothetical marker states. Med Decis Making 23 (2003) 140-149
5. Schunemann H.J., Armstrong D., Degl'innocenti A., Wiklund I., Fallone C.A., Tanser L., et al. A randomized multicenter trial to evaluate simple utility elicitation techniques in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Med Care 42 (2004) 1132-1142
6. Dolan P., Gudex C., Kind P., and Williams A. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J Health Econ 15 (1996) 209-231
7. Bleichrodt H. A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Econ 11 (2002) 447-456
8. Hornberger J.C., Redelmeier D.A., and Petersen J. Variability among methods to assess patients' well-being and consequent effect on a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 45 (1992) 505-512
9. Lenert L.A., and Sturley A.E. Acceptability of computerized Visual Analog Scale, time trade-off and standard gamble rating methods in patients and the public. Proc AMIA Symp (2001) 364-368
10. Torrance GW. A generalized cost-effectiveness model for the evaluation of health programs. Thesis 1971. State University of New York at Buffalo.
11. Lalonde L., Clarke A.E., Joseph L., Mackenzie T., and Grover S.A. Comparing the psychometric properties of preference-based and nonpreference-based health-related quality of life in coronary heart disease. Canadian Collaborative Cardiac Assessment Group. Qual Life Res 8 (1999) 399-409
12. Lundberg L., Johannesson M., Silverdahl M., Hermansson C., and Lindberg M. Quality of life, health-state utilities and willingness to pay in patients with psoriasis and atopic eczema. Br J Dermatol 141 (1999) 1067-1075
13. Moore A.D., Clarke A.E., Danoff D.S., Joseph L., Belisle P., Neville C., et al. Can health utility measures be used in lupus research? A comparative validation and reliability study of 4 utility indices. J Rheumatol 26 (1999) 1285-1290
14. van der Donk J., Levendag P.C., Kuijpers A.J., Roest F.H., Habbema J.D., Meeuwis C.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 13 (1995) 2369-2378
15. Read J.L., Quinn R.J., Berwick D.M., Fineberg H.V., and Weinstein M.C. Preferences for health outcomes. Comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making 4 (1984) 315-329
16. Reed W.W., Herbers Jr. J.E., and Noel G.L. Cholesterol-lowering therapy: what patients expect in return. J Gen Intern Med 8 (1993) 591-596
17. Olden K.W. Diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 122 (2002) 1701-1714
18. Jones R., and Lydeard S. Irritable bowel syndrome in the general population. BMJ 304 (1992) 87-90
19. Talley N.J., Zinsmeister A.R., Van Dyke C., and Melton III L.J. Epidemiology of colonic symptoms and the irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 101 (1991) 927-934
20. Gralnek I.M., Hays R.D., Kilbourne A., Naliboff B., and Mayer E.A. The impact of irritable bowel syndrome on health-related quality of life. Gastroenterology 119 (2000) 654-660
21. Wong E., Guyatt G.H., Cook D.J., Griffith L.E., and Irvine E.J. Development of a questionnaire to measure quality of life in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Eur J Surg Suppl 583 (1998) 50-56
22. Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance GW, Barr R, Horsman J. CHEPA Working Paper Series Paper 90-9. In: Guide to Design and Development of Health-state Utility Instrumentation. Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis MU, Hamilton, Ontario. 1990.
23. Wong E., Cronin L., Griffith L., Irvine E.J., and Guyatt G.H. Problems of HRQL assessment: how much is too much?. J Clin Epidemiol 54 (2001) 1081-1085
24. Cleeland C.S., and Ryan K.M. Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singapore 23 (1994) 129-138
25. Ware Jr. J.E., and Sherbourne C.D. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30 (1992) 473-483
26. Bergner M., Bobbitt R.A., Carter W.B., and Gilson B.S. The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 19 (1981) 787-805
27. Howell D.C. Correlation and regression. Statistical methods for psychology. 5th edition (2002), Duxbury Press, Boston, MA
28. Brazier J., Usherwood T., Harper R., and Thomas K. Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 health survey. J Clin Epidemiol 51 (1998) 1115-1128
29. Fryback D.G., Lawrence W.F., Martin P.A., Klein R., and Klein B.E. Predicting quality of well-being scores from the SF-36: results from the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study. Med Decis Making 17 (1997) 1-9
30. Puhan M.A., Behnke M., Devereaux P.J., Montori V.M., Brandli O., Frey M., et al. Measurement of agreement on health-related quality of life changes in response to respiratory rehabilitation by patients and physicians-a prospective study. Respir Med 98 (2004) 1195-1202
31. Fries J.F., and Ramey D.R. "Arthritis specific" global health analog scales assess "generic" health related quality-of-life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 24 (1997) 1697-1702
32. Stavem K. Quality of life in epilepsy: comparison of four preference measures. Epilepsy Res 29 (1998) 201-209
33. Akehurst R., and Kaltenthaler E. Treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: a review of randomised controlled trials. Gut 48 (2001) 272-282
34. Froberg D.G., and Kane R.L. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences-II: Scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol 42 (1989) 459-471