IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v29y2009i2p257-266.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of the Scale Upper Anchor on Health State Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Joseph T. King Jr

    (Section of Neurosurgery, VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, Connecticut, Joseph.KingJr@va.gov, Department of Neurosurgery, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut)

  • Joel Tsevat

    (Section of Outcomes Research, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, Center for Clinical Effectiveness, Institute for the Study of Health, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio)

  • Mark S. Roberts

    (Section of Decision Sciences and Clinical Systems Modeling, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)

Abstract

Background . Some studies of patient preferences use a measurement scale with an upper anchor point of ``perfect health'' (`` Q scale''), whereas others use ``disease free'' (`` q scale''). Different measurement scales can lead to problems with interpreting and comparing study results. In an earlier study of patients with degenerative spine disease, the authors showed systematic differences between preferences measured on the Q v. q scales. They sought to validate the differences in Q and q scale measurements in a separate patient population. Methods . The authors measured preferences for current health in a population of 186 patients with cerebral aneurysms using the standard gamble (SG), time tradeoff (TTO), and willingness to pay (WTP) methods. Values were measured on both the Q and q scales and compared with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The authors used an additive utility model to calculate aneurysm-specific disutility. Results . Q and q scale values were different for the SG (mean values Q : 0.77, q : 0.80, P = 0.034), TTO ( Q : 0.79, q : 0.81, P = 0.065), and WTP ( Q : $117,600, q : $94,500, P

Suggested Citation

  • Joseph T. King Jr & Joel Tsevat & Mark S. Roberts, 2009. "Impact of the Scale Upper Anchor on Health State Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(2), pages 257-266, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:2:p:257-266
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08326148
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X08326148
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X08326148?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. Alan Diener & Bernie O'Brien & Amiram Gafni, 1998. "Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(4), pages 313-326, June.
    2. Daniel Polsky & Richard J. Willke & Karen Scott & Kevin A. Schulman & Henry A. Glick, 2001. "A comparison of scoring weights for the EuroQol© derived from patients and the general public," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(1), pages 27-37, January.
    3. Sherine E. Gabriel & Terry S. Kneeland & L. Joseph Melton & Megan M. Moncur & Bruce Ettinger & Anna N.A. Tosteson, 1999. "Health-related Quality of Life in Economic Evaluations for Osteoporosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(2), pages 141-148, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Julie Sturza, 2010. "A Review and Meta-Analysis of Utility Values for Lung Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(6), pages 685-693, November.

    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. Julie Sturza, 2010. "A Review and Meta-Analysis of Utility Values for Lung Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(6), pages 685-693, November.
    2. Christine McDonough & Anna Tosteson, 2007. "Measuring Preferences for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 93-106, February.
    3. Franz Hackl & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2005. "Warm glow, free‐riding and vehicle neutrality in a health‐related contingent valuation study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 293-306, March.
    4. Adam Finn & Stuart McFadyen & Colin Hoskins, 2003. "Valuing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 177-192, November.
    5. Panos Pashardes & Nicoletta Pashourtidou, 2011. "Consumer welfare from publicly supplemented private goods: age and income effects on demand for health care," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 865-885, December.
    6. Xue, Hong & Mainville, Denise Y. & You, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2009. "Nutrition Knowledge, Sensory Characteristics and Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pasture-Fed Beef," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49277, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Hui Zhang & Christian Wernz & Danny R. Hughes, 2018. "Modeling and designing health care payment innovations for medical imaging," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 37-51, March.
    8. Richard D. Smith, 2003. "Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care:a critical assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 609-628, August.
    9. Trine Bergmo & Silje Wangberg, 2007. "Patients’ willingness to pay for electronic communication with their general practitioner," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 8(2), pages 105-110, June.
    10. Markus König & Christian Pfarr & Peter Zweifel, 2014. "Mutual Altruism: Evidence from Alzheimer Patients and Their Spouse Caregivers," Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research, in: Preference Measurement in Health, volume 24, pages 141-160, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    11. Damschroder, Laura J. & Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. & Ubel, Peter A., 2005. "The impact of considering adaptation in health state valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 267-277, July.
    12. Alan Shiell & Lisa Gold, 2003. "If the price is right: vagueness and values clarification in contingent valuation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(11), pages 909-919, November.
    13. Joseph T. King Jr. & Joel Tsevat & Judith R. Lave & Mark S. Roberts, 2005. "Willingness to Pay for a Quality-Adjusted Life Year: Implications for Societal Health Care Resource Allocation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(6), pages 667-677, November.
    14. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    15. Smith, Richard D. & Richardson, Jeff, 2005. "Can we estimate the `social' value of a QALY?: Four core issues to resolve," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 77-84, September.
    16. Thomas Hammerschmidt & Hans-Peter Zeitler & Markus Gulich & Reiner Leidl, 2004. "A Comparison of Different Strategies to Collect Standard Gamble Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(5), pages 493-503, October.
    17. Jennifer Whitty, 2012. "Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation Studies," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(6), pages 361-363, November.
    18. San Miguel, Fernando & Ryan, Mandy & Scott, Anthony, 2002. "Are preferences stable? The case of health care," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 1-14, May.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:96-106 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Tambor, Marzena & Pavlova, Milena & Rechel, Bernd & Golinowska, Stanisława & Sowada, Christoph & Groot, Wim, 2014. "Willingness to pay for publicly financed health care services in Central and Eastern Europe: Evidence from six countries based on a contingent valuation method," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 193-201.
    21. Stirling Bryan & David Parry, 2002. "Structural reliability of conjoint measurement in health care: an empirical investigation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(5), pages 561-567.

    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:29:y:2009:i:2:p:257-266. 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.