Feasibility, reliability, and validity of three health-state valuation methods using multiple-outcome vignettes on moderate-risk pregnancy at term

Value in Health

Volumn 12, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 821-827

  Bijlenga, Denise ^a   Birnie, Erwin ^b   Bonsel, Gouke J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Conjoint analysis; Health related quality of life; Panel study; Preferences; Pregnancy; Trade offs; Vignettes; Visual analogue scale

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FETUS OUTCOME; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; LABOR INDUCTION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PANEL STUDY; PREGNANCY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RELIABILITY; VIGNETTE; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

ADULT; AGED; DELIVERY, OBSTETRIC; FEMALE; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; MATERNAL WELFARE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 67649989428     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00503.x     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. 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.
2. Brazier J, Dixon S. The use of condition specific outcome measures in economic appraisal. Health Econ 1995 4 : 255 64.
3. Szeinbach SL, Barnes JH, McGhan WF, et al. Using conjoint analysis to evaluate health state preferences. Drug Inf J 1999 33 : 849 58.
4. Krabbe PF, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ. The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods. Soc Sci Med 1997 45 : 1641 52.
5. Kjær T. A review of the Discrete Choice Experiment - with Emphasis on Its Application in Health Care. Odense, Denmark : University of Southern Denmark, 2005.
6. Ryan M. Discrete choice experiments in health care. BMJ 2004 328 : 360 1.
7. Bryan S, Dolan P. Discrete choice experiments in health economics. For better or for worse? Eur J Health Econ 2004 5 : 199 202. (Pubitemid 39382517)
8. Ryan M, McIntosh E, Shackley P. Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care. Health Econ 1998 7 : 373 8.
9. Stolk EA, Busschbach JJ. Validity and feasibility of the use of condition-specific outcome measures in economic evaluation. Qual Life Res 2003 12 : 363 71.
10. Van den Hove MM, Willekes C, Roumen FJ, Scherjon SA. Intrauterine growth restriction at term: Induction or spontaneous labour? Disproportionate intrauterine growth intervention trial at term (DIGITAT): a pilot study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006 125 : 54 8.
11. Boers KE, Bijlenga D, Mol BW, et al. Disproportionate intrauterine growth intervention trial at term: DIGITAT. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2007 7 : 12.
12. Koopmans CM, Bijlenga D, Aarnoudse JG, et al. Induction of labour versus expectant monitoring in women with pregnancy induced hypertension or mild preeclampsia at term: the HYPITAT trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2007 7 : 14.
13. Patrick DL, Bush JW, Chen MM. Methods for measuring levels of well-being for a health status index. Health Serv Res 1973 8 : 228 45.
14. Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Making 2001 21 : 329 34.
15. Dolan P, Sutton M. Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values. Soc Sci Med 1997 44 : 1519 30.
16. Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res 1972 7 : 118 33.
17. Torrance GW. Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socioecon Plann Sci 1976 10 : 129 36.
18. Badia X, Monserrat S, Roset M, Herdman M. Feasibility, validity and test-retest reliability of scaling methods for health states: the visual analogue scale and the time trade-off. Qual Life Res 1999 8 : 303 10.
19. Janssen MF, Birnie E, Bonsel GJ. Feasibility and Reliability of the Annual Profile Model for Deriving QALYs for Short Term Health Conditions. Amsterdam : University of Amsterdam, 2008.
20. Bonsel GJ, Janssen MF, Birnie E, Mild Disease & Ailments Study (MiDAS). Ziektelast bepaling van 27 vermoedelijk "lichte" ziekten ten behoeve van rationele beperking van het geneesmiddelenpakket: samenvatting Dutch Amsterdam : Department of Social Medicine, AMC, 2003.
21. Luce RD, Tukey JW. Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. J Math Psychol 1964 1 : 1 27.
22. Lloyd AJ. Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate? Health Econ 2003 12 : 393 402. (Pubitemid 36603550)
23. Ryan M, San MF. Revisiting the axiom of completeness in health care. Health Econ 2003 12 : 295 307. (Pubitemid 36442818)
24. Ryan M, Bate A, Eastmond CJ, Ludbrook A. Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Qual Health Care 2001 10 (Suppl. 1 i55 60.
25. Bijlenga D, Birnie E, Bonsel GJ. Attribute Weights in a Multidimensional Obstetrical Decision. Poster presented at European Society of Medical Decision Making Conference, June 13, 2006, Birmingham : UK, 2006.
26. Huber J, Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance and efficient choice designs. J Mark Res 1996 33 : 307 17.
27. Melse JM, Essink-Bot ML, Kramers PG, Hoeymans N. A national burden of disease calculation: Dutch disability-adjusted life-years. Dutch Burden of Disease Group. Am J Public Health 2000 90 : 1241 7.
28. Haagsma JA, van Beeck EF, Polinder S, et al. Novel empirical disability weights to assess the burden of non-fatal injury. Inj Prev 2008 14 : 5 10.
29. Janssen MF, Birnie E, Bonsel GJ. A Head-to-Head Comparison of the Standard QALY Model with the Annual Profile Model. Amsterdam : University of Amsterdam, 2008.
30. Maddala T, Phillips KA, Johnson FR. An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences. Health Econ 2003 12 : 1035 47.
31. Kirsch J, McGuire A. Establishing health state valuations for disease specific states: an example from heart disease. Health Econ 2000 9 : 149 58.
32. Richardson J, Hall J, Salkeld G. The measurement of utility in multiphase health states. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996 12 : 151 62.
33. Salomon JA, Murray CJ. A multi-method approach to measuring health-state valuations. Health Econ 2004 13 : 281 90.
34. Bowe TR. Measuring patient preferences: rating scale versus standard gamble. Med Decis Making 1995 15 : 283 5.
35. Brauer CA, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, Neumann PJ. Trends in the measurement of health utilities in published cost-utility analyses. Value Health 2006 9 : 213 8.
36. Bridges JF. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003 2 : 213 24.
37. Doherty C, Doherty W. Patients' preferences for involvement in clinical decision-making within secondary care and the factors that influence their preferences. J Nurs Manag 2005 13 : 119 27.
38. Dowie J. The role of patients' meta-preferences in the design and evaluation of decision support systems. Health Expect 2002 5 : 16 27. (Pubitemid 34202586)