IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v15y1995i2p132-137.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Time-tradeoff Utilities and Rating Scale Values of Cancer Patients and Their Relatives

Author

Listed:
  • June F. O'Leary
  • Diane L. Fairclough
  • M. Kay Jankowski
  • Jane C. Weeks

Abstract

Because they are easy to administer, rating scales are often used as proxies for utility measures. The authors investigated the relationship between time-tradeoff utilities and rating scale values in two populations: 124 cancer patients asked to evaluate their current states of health and 102 relatives and close friends of cancer patients asked to evaluate health- state scenarios. None of the models tested effectively described the relationship between individual patients' rating scale values and time-tradeoff utilities for their current states of health. In contrast, both a plateau and a power-function model explained the variability in the responses of the relatives reasonably well (R 2 = 0.56 and R 2 = 0.58, respectively). Given that many respondents who were unwilling to trade off any time assigned rating scale values of well below 100, a plateau model may represent the best approach to adjusting rating scale values for health-state scenarios when it is not feasible to elicit time-tradeoff utilities. Key words: time tradeoff; utility; rating scale; cancer; patient preferences; quality of life. (Med Decis Making 1995;15:132-137)

Suggested Citation

  • June F. O'Leary & Diane L. Fairclough & M. Kay Jankowski & Jane C. Weeks, 1995. "Comparison of Time-tradeoff Utilities and Rating Scale Values of Cancer Patients and Their Relatives," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 15(2), pages 132-137, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:15:y:1995:i:2:p:132-137
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9501500205
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9501500205
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9501500205?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. Torrance, George W., 1976. "Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 129-136.
    2. Nord, Erik, 1992. "Methods for quality adjustment of life years," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 559-569, March.
    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. Peasgood, T & Ward, S & Brazier, J, 2010. "A review and meta-analysis of health state utility values in breast cancer," MPRA Paper 29950, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Joshua A. Salomon & Christopher J.L. Murray, 2004. "A multi‐method approach to measuring health‐state valuations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(3), pages 281-290, March.

    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. Paul F M Krabbe, 2013. "A Generalized Measurement Model to Quantify Health: The Multi-Attribute Preference Response Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-12, November.
    2. A.M. Stiggelbout & G.M. Kiebert & J. Kievit & J.W.H. Leer & G. Stoter & J.C.J.M. De Haes, 1994. "Utility Assessment in Cancer Patients," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(1), pages 82-90, February.
    3. Suzanne Robinson, 2011. "Test–retest reliability of health state valuation techniques: the time trade off and person trade off," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(11), pages 1379-1391, November.
    4. Alessandro Corso & Silvia Mangiacavalli & Federica Cocito & Cristiana Pascutto & Virginia Valeria Ferretti & Alessandra Pompa & Roberta Ciampichini & Lara Pochintesta & Lorenzo G Mantovani, 2013. "Long Term Evaluation of the Impact of Autologous Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-6, September.
    5. John Vernon & Robert Goldberg & Joseph Golec, 2009. "Economic Evaluation and Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 27(10), pages 797-806, October.
    6. Hilary A. Llewellyn-Thomas & J. Ivan Williams & Linda Levy & C.D. Naylor, 1996. "Using a Trade-off Technique to Assess Patients' Treatment Preferences for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(3), pages 262-272, August.
    7. Erik Nord, 2015. "Cost-Value Analysis of Health Interventions: Introduction and Update on Methods and Preference Data," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 89-95, February.
    8. Michaël Schwarzinger & Jean‐Louis Lanoë & Erik Nord & Isabelle Durand‐Zaleski, 2004. "Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade‐off responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 171-181, February.
    9. Murray, Christopher J. L. & Acharya, Arnab K., 1997. "Understanding DALYs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 703-730, December.
    10. Peter A. Ubel & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel, 2000. "Societal value, the person trade‐off, and the dilemma of whose values to measure for cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 127-136, March.
    11. Robert J. Brent, 2012. "The Effects Of Hiv Medications On The Quality Of Life Of Older Adults In New York City," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(8), pages 967-976, August.
    12. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    13. Heather J. Sutherland & Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas & Norman F. Boyd & James E. Till, 1982. "Attitudes Toward Quality of Survival," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 2(3), pages 299-309, August.
    14. 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.
    15. Milton C. Weinstein, 1981. "Economic Assessments of Medical Practices and Technologies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 1(4), pages 309-330, December.
    16. Benjamin Matthew Craig & Kim Rand & John D. Hartman, 2022. "Preference Paths and Their Kaizen Tasks for Small Samples," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(2), pages 187-196, March.
    17. Peter A. Ubel & George Loewenstein, 2008. "Pain and Suffering Awards: They Shouldn't Be (Just) about Pain and Suffering," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(S2), pages 195-216, June.
    18. Paul Dolan & Claire Gudex, 1995. "Time preference, duration and health state valuations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 4(4), pages 289-299, July.
    19. George W. Torrance & David Feeny & William Furlong, 2001. "Visual Analog Scales," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(4), pages 329-334, August.
    20. Peter A. Ubel & George Loewenstein & Dennis Scanlon & Mark Kamlet, 1996. "Individual Utilities Are Inconsistent with Rationing Choices," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(2), pages 108-116, June.

    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:15:y:1995:i:2:p:132-137. 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.