IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v30y2010i3p355-365.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Time Tradeoff Method for Eliciting Partner’s Quality of Life due to Patient’s Health States in Prostate Cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Anirban Basu

    (Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Center for Health and Social Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, abasu@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu)

  • William Dale

    (Section of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine and the Section of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Center for Health and Social Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL)

  • Arthur Elstein

    (University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL)

  • David Meltzer

    (the Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Center for Health and Social Sciences, and the Department of Economics, Harris School of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL)

Abstract

Background. Cost-effectiveness analyses may better reflect the full costs and benefits of medical interventions if they incorporate the effects of patients’ health on their family members. Objective. To develop and apply a time tradeoff (TTO) technique to measure the impact of potential prostate cancer—related health states of the patients on the quality of life (QOL) of their partners. Methods. We developed modified TTO questions and applied them in a pilot study in which we asked the partner of the patient to tradeoff his or her own life in order to reduce the burden that he himself or she herself expects to experience if the patient developed one of the prostate cancer—related health states. We reviewed the theoretical justification for this question and carefully framed the question so as to reduce measurement error and also to avoid possible double counting with the effect on the partner’s health. Results. We collected data from 26 partners about their preferences for their own health, which is influenced by the patient’s health condition. The mean QOL weights for the partners when the patients are the following states are healthy, 0.81; impotent, 0.66; incontinent, 0.68; have metastatic disease, 0.50; and dead, 0.28. Partners’ responses varied by how close they felt to the patients. Low correlations between partners’ and patients’ QOL ratings (n = 15) suggest that the partners were not responding as proxies for the patient. Conclusions. A new TTO method is proposed to measure a partner’s QOL due to a patient’s health. Preliminary test results of validity were promising.

Suggested Citation

  • Anirban Basu & William Dale & Arthur Elstein & David Meltzer, 2010. "A Time Tradeoff Method for Eliciting Partner’s Quality of Life due to Patient’s Health States in Prostate Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(3), pages 355-365, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:30:y:2010:i:3:p:355-365
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09349959
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X09349959
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X09349959?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. Jones-Lee, M W, 1992. "Paternalistic Altruism and the Value of Statistical Life," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 102(410), pages 80-90, January.
    2. Jones-Lee, M W, 1991. "Altruism and the Value of Other People's Safety," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 213-219, 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. Keith Tolley & Catherine Goad & Yunni Yi & Penny Maroudas & Amin Haiderali & Gwilym Thompson, 2013. "Utility elicitation study in the UK general public for late-stage chronic lymphocytic leukaemia," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(5), pages 749-759, October.
    2. Henry, Edward & Cullinan, John, 2021. "Mental health spillovers from serious family illness: Doubly robust estimation using EQ-5D-5L population normative data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    3. Lisa Prosser & Scott Grosse & Eve Wittenberg, 2012. "Health Utility Elicitation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 83-86, February.
    4. Hareth Al-Janabi & Andrea Manca & Joanna Coast, 2017. "Predicting carer health effects for use in economic evaluation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-18, September.
    5. Mauricio Lopez-Mendez & Rowan Iskandar & Eric Jutkowitz, 2023. "Individual and Dyadic Health-Related Quality of Life of People Living with Dementia and their Caregivers," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 18(4), pages 1673-1692, August.

    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. Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Kjær, Trine & Nielsen, Jytte Seested, 2016. "The value of mortality risk reductions. Pure altruism - a confounder?," DaCHE discussion papers 2016:5, University of Southern Denmark, Dache - Danish Centre for Health Economics.
    2. Menon Martina & Perali Federico & Veronesi Marcella, 2017. "“Leaving No Child Behind:” Preferences for Social Inclusion and Altruism," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 17(3), pages 1-19, July.
    3. Jon Strand, 2007. "Public-good valuation and intra-family allocation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(4), pages 527-543, December.
    4. Per-Olov Johansson, 1992. "Altruism in cost-benefit analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(6), pages 605-613, November.
    5. Henrik Andersson & Nicolas Treich, 2011. "The Value of a Statistical Life," Chapters, in: André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Roger Vickerman (ed.), A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 17, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Johannesson, Magnus, 1999. "On aggregating QALYs: a comment on Dolan," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 381-386, June.
    7. Olivier Chanel & Stéphane Luchini & Alain Paraponaris & Christel Protière & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2004. "Les consentements à payer pour des programmes de prévention sanitaire incluent-ils de l'altruisme ?. Enseignements d'une enquête sur la fièvre Q," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 55(5), pages 923-945.
    8. Dickie, Mark & Gerking, Shelby, 2007. "Altruism and environmental risks to health of parents and their children," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 323-341, May.
    9. María Vázquez Rodríguez & Carmelo León, 2004. "Altruism and the Economic Values of Environmental and Social Policies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(2), pages 233-249, June.
    10. Messer, Kent D. & Poe, Gregory L. & Schulze, William D., 2008. "The Value of Private Risk Versus the Value of Public Risk: An Experimental Analysis of the Johannesson et al. Conjecture," Working Papers 51141, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    11. Svensson, Mikael & Vredin Johansson, Maria, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Private and Public Safety: Why the Difference?," Working Papers 2007:2, Örebro University, School of Business.
    12. Strand.J., 2001. "Public- and private-good values of statistical lives : results from a combined choice-experiment and contingent-valuation survey," Memorandum 31/2001, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    13. Alberini, Anna & Ščasný, Milan, 2013. "Exploring heterogeneity in the value of a statistical life: Cause of death v. risk perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 143-155.
    14. Jones-Lee, M. & Aven, T., 2009. "The role of social cost–benefit analysis in societal decision-making under large uncertainties with application to robbery at a cash depot," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(12), pages 1954-1961.
    15. Jon Strand, 2005. "Individual and Household Values of Mortality Reductions with Intrahousehold Bargaining," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 217-236, September.
    16. Olsen, Jan Abel & Kidholm, Kristian & Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 2004. "Willingness to pay for public health care: a comparison of two approaches," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 217-228, November.
    17. Josephine Borghi, 2008. "Aggregation rules for cost–benefit analysis: a health economics perspective," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 863-875, July.
    18. Morgan Beeson & Susan Chilton & Michael Jones-Lee & Hugh Metcalf & Jytte Seested Nielsen, 2019. "Can a ‘veil of ignorance’ reduce the impact of distortionary taxation on public good valuations?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 245-262, June.
    19. Sunstein, Cass R., 2013. "The value of a statistical life: some clarifications and puzzles," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 237-261, August.
    20. Basu, Anirban & Meltzer, David, 2005. "Implications of spillover effects within the family for medical cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 751-773, July.

    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:30:y:2010:i:3:p:355-365. 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.