IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v3y2019i2d10.1007_s41669-018-0092-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Psychometric Properties of a Self-Administered, Open-Source Module for Valuing Metastatic Epidural Spinal Cord Compression Utilities

Author

Listed:
  • Markian Pahuta

    (Henry Ford Health System)

  • Aaron Frombach

    (The University of Ottawa)

  • Emile Hashem

    (The University of Ottawa)

  • Stewart Spence

    (The University of Ottawa)

  • Christina Sun

    (The University of Ottawa)

  • Eugene K. Wai

    (The Ottawa Hospital)

  • Joel Werier

    (The Ottawa Hospital)

  • Carl Walraven

    (University of Ottawa)

  • Doug Coyle

    (University of Ottawa)

Abstract

Introduction Web surveys are often used for utility valuation. Typically, custom utility valuation tools that have not undergone psychometric evaluation are used. Objectives This study aimed to determine the psychometric properties of a metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC) module run on a customizable open-source, internet-based, self-directed utility valuation platform (Self-directed Online Assessment of Preferences [SOAP]). Methods Individuals accompanying patients to the emergency department waiting room in Ottawa, Canada, were recruited. Participants made SOAP MESCC health state valuations in the waiting room and 48 h later at home. Validity, agreement reliability, and responsiveness were measured by logical consistency of responses, smallest detectable change, the interclass correlation coefficient, and Guyatt’s responsiveness index, respectively. Results Of 285 participants who completed utility valuations, only 113 (39.6%) completed the re-test. Of these 113 participants, 92 (81.4%) provided valid responses on the first test and 75 (66.4%) provided valid responses on the test and re-test. Agreement for all groups of health states was adequate, since their smallest detectable change was less than the minimal clinically important difference. The mean interclass correlation coefficients for all health states were > 0.8, indicating at least substantial reliability. Guyatt’s responsiveness indices all exceeded 0.80, indicating a high level of responsiveness. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first validated open-source, web-based, self-directed utility valuation module. We have demonstrated the SOAP MESCC module is valid, reproducible, and responsive for obtaining ex ante utilities. Considering the successful psychometric validation of the SOAP MESCC module, other investigators can consider developing modules for other diseases where direct utility valuation is needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Markian Pahuta & Aaron Frombach & Emile Hashem & Stewart Spence & Christina Sun & Eugene K. Wai & Joel Werier & Carl Walraven & Doug Coyle, 2019. "The Psychometric Properties of a Self-Administered, Open-Source Module for Valuing Metastatic Epidural Spinal Cord Compression Utilities," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 197-204, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:3:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s41669-018-0092-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-018-0092-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-018-0092-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-018-0092-1?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. Joseph S. Pliskin & Donald S. Shepard & Milton C. Weinstein, 1980. "Utility Functions for Life Years and Health Status," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 206-224, February.
    2. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    3. Nancy J. Devlin & Paul Hansen & Paul Kind & Alan Williams, 2003. "Logical inconsistencies in survey respondents' health state valuations ‐ a methodological challenge for estimating social tariffs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(7), pages 529-544, July.
    4. Nick Bansback & Aki Tsuchiya & John Brazier & Aslam Anis, 2012. "Canadian Valuation of EQ-5D Health States: Preliminary Value Set and Considerations for Future Valuation Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-11, February.
    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. Oguzhan Alagoz & Jagpreet Chhatwal & Elizabeth S. Burnside, 2013. "Optimal Policies for Reducing Unnecessary Follow-Up Mammography Exams in Breast Cancer Diagnosis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 200-224, September.
    2. MORENO-TERNERO, Juan & OSTERDAL, Lars P., 2014. "Normative foundations for equity-sensitive population health evaluation functions," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2014031, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    3. Franz Ombler & Michael Albert & Paul Hansen, 2017. "The true significance of ‘high’ correlations between EQ-5D value sets," Working Papers 1704, University of Otago, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2017.
    4. Mara Airoldi & Alec Morton, 2009. "Adjusting life for quality or disability: stylistic difference or substantial dispute?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(11), pages 1237-1247, November.
    5. 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.
    6. Oscar Andrés Espinosa Acuna, 2020. "Clasificación de estados de salud y metodologías de valoración de preferencias para el cálculo de AVAC: una revisión de literatura," Ensayos de Economía 19137, Universidad Nacional de Colombia Sede Medellín.
    7. Afschin Gandjour, 2008. "Incorporating feelings related to the uncertainty about future health in utility measurement," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(10), pages 1207-1213, October.
    8. Juan D. Moreno-Ternero & Lars Peter Østerdal, 2017. "A normative foundation for equity-sensitive health evaluation: The role of relative comparisons of health gains," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 19(5), pages 1009-1025, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Feng Xie & Kathryn Gaebel & Kuhan Perampaladas & Brett Doble & Eleanor Pullenayegum, 2014. "Comparing EQ-5D Valuation Studies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(1), pages 8-20, January.
    11. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    12. Franz Ombler & Michael Albert & Paul Hansen, 2018. "How Significant Are “High†Correlations Between EQ-5D Value Sets?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 635-645, August.
    13. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    14. Bengt Liljas, 2011. "Welfare, QALYs, and costs – a comment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 68-72, January.
    15. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    16. Ties Hoomans & Johan Severens & Nicole Roer & Gepke Delwel, 2012. "Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations of New Pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 219-227, March.
    17. Khan, Md. Tajuddin & Kishore, Avinash & Joshi, Pramod Kumar, 2016. "Gender dimensions on farmers’ preferences for direct-seeded rice with drum seeder in India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1550, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    18. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Østerdal, Lars Peter, 2013. "A new axiomatic approach to the evaluation of population health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 515-523.
    19. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.
    20. Jose L Burgos & Thomas L Patterson & Joshua S Graff-Zivin & James G Kahn & M Gudelia Rangel & M Remedios Lozada & Hugo Staines & Steffanie A Strathdee, 2016. "Cost-Effectiveness of Combined Sexual and Injection Risk Reduction Interventions among Female Sex Workers Who Inject Drugs in Two Very Distinct Mexican Border Cities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, February.

    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:spr:pharmo:v:3:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s41669-018-0092-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.