Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Reliability of health utility measures and a test of values clarification

Contents:

Author Info

  • Shiell, Alan
  • Hawe, Penelope
  • Fletcher, Megan
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    This study examines the test-retest reliability of two methods of establishing health preference weights and assesses the effectiveness of a brief values-clarification exercise. Survey participants were randomly allocated to one of two groups and received either a standard protocol for eliciting health preferences (comparison group) or an augmented protocol designed to encourage reflection and deliberation (intervention group). Preferences were elicited on three occasions over 5 weeks. The results show that the two valuation methods each had acceptable levels of test-retest reliability. No significant differences were found in preference weights over time or between intervention and comparison groups. The values-clarification exercise had some impact on individual answers, but the changes cancelled each other out at the group level. There was no discernable intervention effect at the group level. It is premature to draw conclusions from one study about why, or even how, a person's valuations might change over time, but our results support the use of current valuation techniques for group-level analyses.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VBF-460J464-4/2/3f0ec700e50eae310e11ed76095e32e1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

    Volume (Year): 56 (2003)
    Issue (Month): 7 (April)
    Pages: 1531-1541

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:7:p:1531-1541

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description

    Order Information:
    Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional
    Web: http://www.elsevier.com/orderme/journalorderform.cws_home/315/journalorderform1/orderooc/id=654&ref=654_01_ooc_1&version=01

    Related research

    Keywords: Health preferences Values clarification Test-retest reliability Completeness;

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya-Amaya, 2005. "' Threats ' to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619.
    2. Alan Shiell & Penelope Hawe, 2006. "Test-retest reliability of willingness to pay," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 173-178, September.
    3. Schwappach, David L.B. & Strasmann, Thomas J., 2006. ""Quick and dirty numbers"?: The reliability of a stated-preference technique for the measurement of preferences for resource allocation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 432-448, May.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:7:p:1531-1541. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.