IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v19y1999i2p113-120.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Holistic versus Composite Preferences for Lifetime Treatment Sequences for Type 2 Diabetes

Author

Listed:
  • Linda D. Mackeigan
  • Bernie J. O'Brien
  • Paul I. Oh

Abstract

This study of patient preferences for lifetime treatment sequences for type 2 diabetes had three objectives: to assess the feasibility of obtaining holistic preference assess ments using the time-tradeoff (TTO) technique; to compare composite and holistic preference scores for the same lifetime treatment paths; and to assess the validity of composite and holistic preference measures in terms of their congruence with an in dividual's rank-order preferences. 101 persons with type 2 diabetes provided prefer ence ratings for hyperglycemic treatments lasting 30 years, including eight discrete treatment states and four treatment paths. Scenarios described drug and glucose- testing regimens, efficacy of glucose control, and side effects. After ranking and rating scenarios on a thermometer scale, subjects provided TTO preferences for each treat ment state or path scenario. Holistic assessment of treatment paths was feasible with the TTO technique, in terms of useable data (88% of interviews) and effect on coef ficients of variation. Holistic and composite preference scores were not statistically different. Agreement was poor between rankings implied by holistic and composite scores and direct rankings. The authors conclude that lifetime treatment paths with minor differences in health effects can be assessed using either composite (QALY) or holistic (HYE) measures. The validity of these TTO-based preference measures re mains unknown. Key words: individual preferences; diabetes; treatment paths; QALYs. (Med Decis Making 1999;19:113-121)

Suggested Citation

  • Linda D. Mackeigan & Bernie J. O'Brien & Paul I. Oh, 1999. "Holistic versus Composite Preferences for Lifetime Treatment Sequences for Type 2 Diabetes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(2), pages 113-120, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:19:y:1999:i:2:p:113-120
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900201
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9901900201
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9901900201?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. Johannesson, Magnus, 1994. "QALYs, HYEs and individual preferences-- A graphical illustration," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 39(12), pages 1623-1632, December.
    2. Torrance, George W., 1986. "Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal : A review," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, March.
    3. Morrison, Gwendolyn C., 1997. "HYE and TTO: What is the difference?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 563-578, October.
    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. Timothy A. Howell & Louis S. Matza & Monika P. Jun & Jacob Garcia & Annette Powers & David G. Maloney, 2022. "Health State Utilities for Adverse Events Associated with Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy in Large B-Cell Lymphoma," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 367-376, May.

    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. Han Bleichrodt, 2002. "A new explanation for the difference between time trade‐off utilities and standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 447-456, July.
    2. Mark Sculpher, 1998. "The cost‐effectiveness of preference‐based treatment allocation: the case of hysterectomy versus endometrial resection in the treatment of menorrhagia," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(2), pages 129-142, March.
    3. Kristina Burström & Magnus Johannesson & Finn Diderichsen, 2003. "The value of the change in health in Sweden 1980/81 to 1996/97," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 637-654, August.
    4. Jonathan R. Treadwell, 1998. "Tests of Preferential Independence in the QALY Model," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(4), pages 418-428, October.
    5. 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.
    6. McCabe, Christopher & Brazier, John & Gilks, Peter & Tsuchiya, Aki & Roberts, Jennifer & O'Hagan, Anthony & Stevens, Katherine, 2006. "Using rank data to estimate health state utility models," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 418-431, May.
    7. David Mayston, "undated". "Developing a Framework Theory for Assessing the Benefits of Careers Guidance," Discussion Papers 02/08, Department of Economics, University of York.
    8. Richard D. Smith, 2008. "Contingent valuation in health care: does it matter how the ‘good’ is described?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 607-617, May.
    9. Islam, M. Kamrul & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Gullberg, Bo & Lindström, Martin & Merlo, Juan, 2008. "Social capital externalities and mortality in Sweden," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 19-42, March.
    10. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    11. Cookson, Richard, 2000. "Incorporating psycho-social considerations into health valuation: an experimental study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 369-401, May.
    12. Hammer, Jeffrey S., 1992. "To prescribe or not to prescribe: On the regulation of pharmaceuticals in less developed countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 959-964, May.
    13. McNamee, Paul, 2007. "What difference does it make? The calculation of QALY gains from health profiles using patient and general population values," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(2-3), pages 321-331, December.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Oliver, Adam, 2003. "The internal consistency of the standard gamble: tests after adjusting for prospect theory," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 159, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Kevin Haninger & James K. Hammitt, 2011. "Diminishing Willingness to Pay per Quality‐Adjusted Life Year: Valuing Acute Foodborne Illness," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(9), pages 1363-1380, September.
    18. Adam Oliver, 2005. "Testing the internal consistency of the lottery equivalents method using health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 149-159, February.
    19. Louis S. Matza & Katherine J. Kim & Holly Yu & Katherine A. Belden & Antonia F. Chen & Mark Kurd & Bruce Y. Lee & Jason Webb, 2019. "Health state utilities associated with post-surgical Staphylococcus aureus infections," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 819-827, August.
    20. 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:19:y:1999:i:2:p:113-120. 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.