Health Utility Bias: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analytic Evaluation

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 58-67

  Doctor, Jason N ^a   Bleichrodt, Han ^b   Lin, H Jill ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Category scale; Rating scale; Standard gamble.; Time tradeoff; Utility measurement

Indexed keywords

EPIDEMIOLOGY; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; QUALITY OF LIFE;

EID: 75949096715     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07312478     Document Type: Review

References (60)

1. Froberg DG, Kane RL Methodology for measuring health-state preferences. II. Scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989 ; 42: 459-471. 2. Drummond MF, OBrien B., Stoddart G., Torrance GW Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 2 nd ed. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press ; 1997.
2. Elkin EB, Cowen ME, Cahill D., Steffel M., Kattan MW Preference assessment method affects decision-analytic recommendations: A prostate cancer treatment example. Med Decis Making. 2004 ; 24: 504-510.
3. Bleichrodt H. A new explanation for the difference between SG and TTO utilities. Health Econ. 2002 ; 11: 447-456.
4. Bleichrodt H., Johannesson M. An experimental test of a theoretical foundation for rating scale valuations. Med Decis Making. 1997 ; 17: 208-216.
5. Robinson A., Loomes, G. Jones-Lee, M. Visual analog scales, standard gambles, and relative risk aversion. Med Decis Making. 2001 ; 21: 17-27.
6. Parducci A. Category judgment: a range-frequency model. Psychol Rev. 1965 ; 75: 407-418.
7. Schwartz A. Rating scales in context. Med Decis Making. 1998 ; 18: 236.
8. Pollack I. Iterative techniques for unbiased rating scales. Q J Exp Psychol. 1965 ; 17: 139-148.
9. Pollack I. Neutralization of stimulus bias in the rating of grays. J Exp Psychol. 1965 ; 69: 564-578.
10. Birnbaum MH How to show that 9 > 221: collect judgments in a between-subjects design. Psychol Methods. 1999 ; 4: 243-249.
11. Birnbaum MH Using contextual effects to derive psychophysical scales. Percept Psychophys. 1974 ; 15: 89-96.
12. McNeil BJ, Weichselbaum R., Pauker S. Speech and survival: tradeoffs between quality and quantity of life in laryngeal cancer. N Engl J Med. 1981 ; 305: 982-987.
13. Ihaka R., Gentlemen R. R-a language for data analysis and graphics. J Comp Graph Stat. 1996 ; 5: 299-314.
14. Morris SB, DeShon RP Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychol Methods. 2002 ; 7: 105-125.
15. Howell DC Fundamental Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. 2 nd ed. Boston: PWS-Kent ; 1989.
16. Torrance GW Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Econ Plan Sci. 1976 ; 10: 129-136.
17. Wolfson AD, Sinclair AJ, Bombardier C., McGeer A. Preference measurements for functional status in stroke patients: interrater and intertechnique comparisons. In: Kane RL, Kane RA, eds. Values and Long Term Care. Lexington (MA): Lexington Books ; 1982. p 191-214
18. Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinstein MC Preferences for health outcomes: comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making. 1984 ; 4: 315-329.
19. Nickerson CE Assessing convergent validity of health-state utilities obtained using different scaling methods. Med Decis Making. 1999 ; 19: 487-496.
20. Kartman B., Gatz G., Johannesson M. Health state utilities in gastroesophageal reflux disease patients with heartburn: a study in Germany and Sweden. Med Decis Making. 2004 ; 24: 40-52.
21. Krabbe PFM, Essink-Bot M., Bonsel, GJ The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods. Soc Sci Med. 1997 ; 45: 1641-1652.
22. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1992 ; 5: 297-323.
23. Bleichrodt, H., Pinto JL, Wakker PP Making descriptive use of prospect theory to improve the prescriptive use of expected utility. Manage Sci. 2001 ; 47: 1498-1514.
24. van Osch SMC, Wakker PP, van den Hout WB, Stiggelbout AM Correcting biases in standard gamble and time trade-off utilities. Med Decis Making. 2004 ; 24: 511-517.
25. Prelec D. The probability weighting function. Econometrica. 1998 ; 66: 497-527.
26. Wakker P., Stiggelbout A. Explaining distortions in utility elicitation through the rank-dependent model for risky choices. Med Decis Making. 1995 ; 15: 180-186.
27. Stalmeier PF, Goldstein MK, Holmes AM, et al. What should be reported in a methods section on utility assessment ? Med Decis Making. 2001 ; 21: 200-207.
28. Tsevat J., Solzan JG, Kuntz KM, et al. Health values of patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus: relationship to mental health and physical functioning. Med Care. 1996 ; 34: 44-57.
29. Merlino LA, Bagchi I., Taylor TN, et al. Preference for fractures and other glucocorticoid-associated adverse effects among rheumatoid arthritis patients. Med Decis Making. 2001 ; 21: 122-132.
30. Mackeigan LD, OBrien BJ, Oh PI Holistic versus composite preferences for lifetime treatment sequences for type 2 diabetes. Med Decis Making. 1999 ; 19: 113-121.
31. Sculpher M., Michaels J., McKenna M., Minor J. A cost-utility analysis of laser-assisted angioplasty for peripheral arterial occlusions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1996 ; 12: 104-125.
32. Sanderson K., Andrews G., Corry J., Lapsley H. Using the effect size to model change in preference values from descriptive health states. Qual Life Res. 2004 ; 13: 1255-1264.
33. Bosch JL, Hunink MGM Comparison of the health utilities index mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D in patients treated for intermittent claudication. Qual Life Res. 2000 ; 9: 591-601.
34. Ackerman SJ, Beusterien KM, Mafilios MS, Wood MR Measuring preferences for living in U.S. states: a comparison of the rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble. Acad Radiol. 1998 ; 5 Suppl 2: S291-6.
35. Zug KA, Littenberg B., Baughman RD, et al. Assessing the preferences of patients with psoriasis-a quantitative, utility approach. Arch Dermatol. 1995 ; 131: 561-568.
36. Daly E., Gray A., Barlow D., McPherson K., Roche M., Vessey M. Measuring the impact of menopausal symptoms on quality of life. BMJ. 1993 ; 307: 836-840. (Pubitemid 23281748)
37. Schwarzinger M., Stouthard MEA, Burstrom K., Nord E. ; European Disability Weights Group. Cross-national agreement on disability weights: the European Disability Weights Project. Population Health Metrics. 2003 ; 1: 9-19.
38. Revicki DA, Wu AW, Murray MI Change in clinical status, health status, and health utility outcomes in HIV-infected patients. Med Care. 1995 ; 33: AS173-82.
39. Llewellyn-Thomas JA, Thiel EC, McGreal MJ Cancer patients evaluations of their current health states: the influence of expectations, comparisons, actual health status, and mood. Med Decis Making. 1992 ; 12: 115-122.
40. Revicki DA Relationship between health utility and psychometric health status measure. Med Care. 1992 ; 30: MS274-82.
41. Llewellyn-Thomas H., Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R., Ciampi A., Till JE, Boyd NF Describing health states. Methodologic issues in obtaining values for health states. Med Care. 1984 ; 22: 543-552.
42. Sullivan SD, Lew DP, Devine EB, et al. Health state preference assessment in diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Pharmacoeconomics. 2002 ; 20: 1079-1089.
43. Lenert LA, Ziegler J., Lee T., Sommi R., Mahmoud R. Differences in health values among patients, family members, and providers for outcomes in schizophrenia. Med Care. 2000 ; 38: 1011-1021.
44. Pinto-Prades J. Is the person trade-off a valid method for allocating health care resources? Health Econ. 1997 ; 6: 71-81.
45. Lyerly AD, Myers ER, Faden RR The ethics of aggregation and hormone replacement therapy. Health Care Anal. 2001 ; 9: 187-221.
46. Lenert LA, Soetikno RM Automated computer interviews to elicit utilities: potential applications in the treatment of deep venous thrombosis. JAMIA. 1997 ; 49-56.
47. Bosch JL, Tetteroo E., Mali WP, Hunink MG Iliac arterial occlusive disease: cost-effectiveness analysis of stent placement versus percutaneous transluminal angioplasty: Dutch Iliac Stent Trial Study Group. Radiology. 1998 ; 208: 641-648.
48. Richardson J. Economic assessment of health care: theory and practice. Australian Economics Review. 1991 ; 93: 4-21.
49. Neumann PJ, Blumenschein K., Zillich A., et al. Relationship between FEV1% predicted and utilities in adult asthma. Presented at Society for Medical Decision Making, 22nd Annual Meeting, Cincinnati, OH, 2000.
50. Richardson J., Hall J., Salkeld G. The measurement of utility in multiphase health states. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1996 ; 12: 151-162.
51. Jonsson B., Horisberger B., Bruguera M., Matter L. Cost-benefit analysis of hepatitis-B vaccination. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1991 ; 7: 379-402.
52. 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: 329-334.
53. Tversky A., Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981 ; 211: 453-458.
54. Dyer JS, Sarin RK Relative risk aversion. Manage Sci. 1982 ; 28: 875-886.
55. Starmer C. Developments in non-expected utility theory: the hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. J Econ Lit. 2000 ; 38: 332-382.
56. Rabin M. Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: a calibration theorem. Econometrica. 2000 ; 68 (5). 1281-1292.
57. Wakker P. Separating marginal utility and probabilistic risk aversion. Theory and Decision. 1994 ; 36: 1-44.
58. Stalmeier PFM, Bezembinder TGG The discrepancy between risky and riskless utilities: a matter of framing ? Med Decis Making. 1999 ; 19: 435-447.
59. Abdellaoui M., Barrios C., Wakker PP Reconciling introspective utility with revealed preference: experimental arguments based on prospect theory. J Econ. 2007 ; 138: 356-378.
60. Attema AE, Bleichrodt H., Wakker PP Measuring the utility of life duration in a risk-free versus risky situation. Working paper, Erasmus University ; 2006.