IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v16y1996i3p226-233.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Heterogeneity in the Relationship between the Standard-gamble Utility Measure and Health-status Dimensions

Author

Listed:
  • Jan Roelf Bult
  • Johanna L. Bosch
  • Maria G.M. Hunink

Abstract

The authors assessed the relationship between the standard-gamble utility measure and the RAND-36 health-status dimensions, taking into account possible heterogeneity among patients in the weights they assign to different health-status dimensions. A questionnaire including both measures was completed by 68 patients with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease. Conventional multiple regression analysis, assuming a ho mogeneous relationship for the total population between the standard-gamble utility and the RAND-36 health-status dimensions, demonstrated that only the dimension social functioning was significant (p

Suggested Citation

  • Jan Roelf Bult & Johanna L. Bosch & Maria G.M. Hunink, 1996. "Heterogeneity in the Relationship between the Standard-gamble Utility Measure and Health-status Dimensions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(3), pages 226-233, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:16:y:1996:i:3:p:226-233
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9601600306
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9601600306
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9601600306?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johanna L. Bosch & Maria G.M. Hunink, 1996. "The Relationship between Descriptive and Valuational Quality-of-life Measures in Patients with Intermittent Claudication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(3), pages 217-225, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gerdtham, U. -G. & Johannesson, M. & Lundberg, L. & Isacson, D., 1999. "The demand for health: results from new measures of health capital," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 501-521, September.
    2. Karen Gerard & Katharine Johnston & Jackie Brown, 1999. "The role of a pre‐scored multi‐attribute health classification measure in validating condition‐specific health state descriptions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(8), pages 685-699, December.
    3. Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Johannesson, Magnus, 1999. "New estimates of the demand for health: results based on a categorical health measure and Swedish micro data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(10), pages 1325-1332, November.
    4. John Brazier & Yaling Yang & Aki Tsuchiya & Donna Rowen, 2010. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(2), pages 215-225, April.
    5. G. Ardine De Wit & Jan J.V. Busschbach & Frank Th. De Charro, 2000. "Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 109-126, March.
    6. Burstrom, Kristina & Johannesson, Magnus & Diderichsen, Finn, 2006. "A comparison of individual and social time trade-off values for health states in the general population," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 359-370, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:16:y:1996:i:3:p:226-233. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.