IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v6y1982i1p79-93.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Relative Importance of Treatment Outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Austen Clark

    (Dartmouth Medical School)

  • Matthew J. Friedman

    (Dartmouth Medical School, Department of Psychiatry Veterans Administration Hospital White River Junction, Vermont)

Abstract

Cost-effectiveness studies require one to estimate overall program effectiveness using multiple outcome measures. However, one must first establish the relative importance of the different outcomes. Using an iterative process of group discussion, voting, and feedback of results, subjects ranked nine outcome scales in priority and assigned importance weights. Improvement in client ability to be self-supporting was judged the most important outcome, with symptom reduction second. Involvement with friends and substance abuse were judged the least important outcomes. The group achieved a high degree of consensus, as measured by convergence towards increasingly precise and distinct importance weights.

Suggested Citation

  • Austen Clark & Matthew J. Friedman, 1982. "The Relative Importance of Treatment Outcomes," Evaluation Review, , vol. 6(1), pages 79-93, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:6:y:1982:i:1:p:79-93
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X8200600106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X8200600106
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X8200600106?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. Ralph L. Keeney, 1972. "Utility Functions for Multiattributed Consequences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(5-Part-1), pages 276-287, January.
    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. Pierre Picard, 2016. "A Note on Health Insurance under Ex Post Moral Hazard," Risks, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-9, October.
    2. Hauser, John R. & Urban, Glen L., 1975. "A normative methodology for modeling consumer response to innovation," Working papers 785-75., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    3. James S. Dyer & James E. Smith, 2021. "Innovations in the Science and Practice of Decision Analysis: The Role of Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5364-5378, September.
    4. Anderson, Jock R. & Hardaker, J. Brian, 1972. "An Appreciation of Decision Analysis in Management," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 40(04), pages 1-15, December.
    5. Harsha Cheemakurthy & Karl Garme, 2022. "Fuzzy AHP-Based Design Performance Index for Evaluation of Ferries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-27, March.
    6. He, Ying & Huang, Rui-Hua, 2008. "Risk attributes theory: Decision making under risk," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 243-260, April.
    7. John R. Hauser, 1977. "Consumer Preference Axioms: Behavioral Postulates for Describing and Predicting Stochastic Choice," Discussion Papers 287, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    8. Zhang, Junyi & Kuwano, Masashi & Lee, Backjin & Fujiwara, Akimasa, 2009. "Modeling household discrete choice behavior incorporating heterogeneous group decision-making mechanisms," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 230-250, February.
    9. Dillon, John L. & Perry, Chad, 1977. "Multiattribute Utility Theory, Multiple Objectives And Uncertainty In Ex Ante Project Evaluation," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 45(01-2), pages 1-25, March.
    10. S. Schäffler & R. Schultz & K. Weinzierl, 2002. "Stochastic Method for the Solution of Unconstrained Vector Optimization Problems," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 114(1), pages 209-222, July.
    11. de Almeida, Jonatas Araujo & Costa, Ana Paula Cabral Seixas & de Almeida-Filho, Adiel Teixeira, 2016. "A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: Flexible and interactive tradeoffAuthor-Name: de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 179-191.
    12. Kubińska, Elżbieta & Adamczyk-Kowalczuk, Magdalena & Andrzejewski, Mariusz & Rozakis, Stelios, 2022. "Incorporating the status quo effect into the decision making process: The case of municipal companies merger," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    13. John W. Boudreau, 2004. "50th Anniversary Article: Organizational Behavior, Strategy, Performance, and Design in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(11), pages 1463-1476, November.
    14. James E. Smith & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2004. "Anniversary Article: Decision Analysis in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(5), pages 561-574, May.
    15. Voola, Persis & A., Vinaya Babu, 2017. "Study of aggregation algorithms for aggregating imprecise software requirements’ priorities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(3), pages 1191-1199.
    16. Fry, Phillip C. & Rinks, Dan B. & Ringuest, Jeffrey L., 1996. "Comparing the predictive validity of alternatively assessed multi-attribute preference models when relevant decision attributes are missing," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 599-609, November.
    17. Zhang, Junyi & Timmermans, Harry J. P. & Borgers, Aloys, 2005. "A model of household task allocation and time use," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 81-95, January.

    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:evarev:v:6:y:1982:i:1:p:79-93. 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.