IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v21y2001i3p200-207.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Should Be Reported in a Methods Section on Utility Assessment?

Author

Listed:
  • Peep F. M. Stalmeier

    (Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, and the Joint Center for Radiation Oncology Arnhem-Nijmegen (RADIAN), University Medical Center Nijmegen, and the Nijmegen Institute for Cognition and Information (NICI), Nijmegen, the Netherlands)

  • M. K. Goldstein

    (VA Palo Alto Health Care System and Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California)

  • A. M. Holmes

    (School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis, Indiana)

  • L. Lenert

    (Department of Medicine, Veterans Affairs Healthcare System and the University of California, San Diego)

  • J. Miyamoto

    (Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle)

  • A. M. Stiggelbout

    (Department of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands)

  • G. W. Torrance

    (Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, Innovus Research, Inc., Burlington, Ontario, Canada, and Health Utilities, Inc., Dundas, Ontario, Canada)

  • J. Tsevat

    (Section of Outcomes Research, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio)

Abstract

Background . The measurement of utilities, or preferences, for health states may be affected by the technique used. Unfortunately, in papers reporting utilities, it is often difficult to infer how the utility measurement was carried out. Purpose . To present a list of components that, when described, provide sufficient detail of the utility assessment. Methods . An initial list was prepared by one of the authors. A panel of 8 experts was formed to add additional components. The components were drawn from 6 clusters that focus on the design of the study, the administration procedure, the health state descriptions, the description of the utility assessment method, the description of the indifference procedure, and the use of visual aids or software programs. The list was updated and redistributed among a total of 14 experts, and the components were judged for their importance of being mentioned in a Methods section. Results . More than 40 components were generated. Ten components were identified as necessary to include even in an article not focusing on utility measurement: how utility questions were administered, how health states were described, which utility assessment method(s) was used, the response and completion rates, specification of the duration of the health states, which software program (if any) was used, the description of the worst health state (lower anchor of the scale), whether a matching or choice indifference search procedure was used, when the assessment was conducted relative to treatment, and which (if any) visual aids were used. The interjudge reliability was satisfactory (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85). Discussion . The list of components important for utility papers may be used in various ways, for instance, as a checklist while writing, reviewing, or reading a Methods section or while designing experiments. Guidelines are provided for a few components.

Suggested Citation

  • Peep F. M. Stalmeier & M. K. Goldstein & A. M. Holmes & L. Lenert & J. Miyamoto & A. M. Stiggelbout & G. W. Torrance & J. Tsevat, 2001. "What Should Be Reported in a Methods Section on Utility Assessment?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(3), pages 200-207, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:21:y:2001:i:3:p:200-207
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0102100305
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X0102100305
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X0102100305?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Michael J. Zoratti & A. Simon Pickard & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Daniel Ollendorf & Andrew Lloyd & Kelvin K W Chan & Don Husereau & John E. Brazier & Murray Krahn & Mitchell Levine & Lehana Thabane & Fe, 2021. "Evaluating the conduct and application of health utility studies: a review of critical appraisal tools and reporting checklists," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 723-733, July.
    2. Arthur Attema & Yvette Edelaar-Peeters & Matthijs Versteegh & Elly Stolk, 2013. "Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 53-64, July.
    3. Trude Arnesen & Mari Trommald, 2005. "Are QALYs based on time trade‐off comparable? – A systematic review of TTO methodologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 39-53, January.
    4. Versteegh, MM & Attema, AE & Oppe, M & Devlin, NJ & Stolk, EA, 2012. "Time to tweak the TTO. But how?," MPRA Paper 37989, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Marie-Josée Dion & Pierre Tousignant & Jean Bourbeau & Dick Menzies & Kevin Schwartzman, 2002. "Measurement of Health Preferences among Patients with Tuberculous Infection and Disease," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(1_suppl), pages 102-114, September.
    6. Dinesh Khanna & Robert M. Kaplan & Mark H. Eckman & Ron D. Hays & Anthony C. Leonard & Shaari S. Ginsburg & Joel Tsevat, 2009. "A Randomized Study of Scleroderma Health State Values: A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words, and Quite a Few Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(1), pages 7-14, January.
    7. Shaheen, Rubina & Lindholm, Lars, 2006. "Quality of life among pregnant women with chronic energy deficiency in rural Bangladesh," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(2-3), pages 128-134, October.
    8. Lisa Prosser & James Hammitt & Ron Keren, 2007. "Measuring Health Preferences for Use in Cost-Utility and Cost-Benefit Analyses of Interventions in Children," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(9), pages 713-726, September.

    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:21:y:2001:i:3:p:200-207. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.