IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v19y1999i3p265-275.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of Preference Assessment Instruments Used in a Clinical Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Henry A. Glick
  • Daniel Polsky
  • Richard J. Willke
  • Kevin A. Schulman

Abstract

Objectives . To compare preference assessments that were made by using the EuroQol EQ-5D and the Health Utilities Index Mark II. Subjects. 561 patients in a randomized trial of tirilazad mesylate for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Measures . Three preference assessments (a value score for the EuroQol instrument and value and utility scores for the Health Utilities Index) made three months after randomization. The av erages for each of the three scores, stratified by clinical outcomes and attributes of the Health Utilities Index health status classification system, were compared. To eval uate potential sources of difference between the instruments, the authors estimated two alternative Health Utilities Index sconng rules that were based on patient re sponses to the EuroQol instrument. Results . Patients' ratings of their current health made by using the 100-point visual analog scale from the EuroQol instrument were more similar to the utility scores for the Health Utilities Index than they were to the value scores for the Health Utilities Index. The biggest differences between the visual analog scores for the EuroQol instrument and the utility scores for the Health Utilities index were seen at higher levels of functioning. Conclusion . For states representing higher levels of functioning, differences were seen between patients' self-ratings ob tained by using the EuroQol instrument and the patients' utility scores on the Health Utilities Index; for states representing lower levels of functioning, substantial agreement was observed between these two scores. Differences observed at the higher levels of functioning suggest that further research is needed to determine whether the Health Utility Index's assignment of a score of 1.0 to the reference state representing being healthy is appropriate. Key words: preference assessment; health utilities index; EuroQol; clinical trials; subarachnoid hemorrhage. (Med Decis Making 1999; 19:265- 275)

Suggested Citation

  • Henry A. Glick & Daniel Polsky & Richard J. Willke & Kevin A. Schulman, 1999. "A Comparison of Preference Assessment Instruments Used in a Clinical Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(3), pages 265-275, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:19:y:1999:i:3:p:265-275
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900305
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9901900305
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9901900305?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. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    2. Dennis G. Fryback & William F. Lawrence JR, 1997. "Dollars May Not Buy as Many QALYs as We Think:," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(3), pages 276-284, July.
    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. Daniel Polsky & Richard J. Willke & Karen Scott & Kevin A. Schulman & Henry A. Glick, 2001. "A comparison of scoring weights for the EuroQol© derived from patients and the general public," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(1), pages 27-37, January.
    2. Stirling Bryan & Louise Longworth, 2005. "Measuring health-related utility:," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(3), pages 253-260, September.

    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. Georgia Perakis & Guillaume Roels, 2008. "Regret in the Newsvendor Model with Partial Information," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 188-203, February.
    2. Jinyi Hu, 2023. "Linguistic Multiple-Attribute Decision Making Based on Regret Theory and Minimax-DEA," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-14, October.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:6:p:1044-1051 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde, 2017. "How regret moves individual and collective choices towards rationality," Chapters, in: Morris Altman (ed.), Handbook of Behavioural Economics and Smart Decision-Making, chapter 11, pages 188-204, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Martín Egozcue & Xu Guo & Wing-Keung Wong, 2015. "Optimal output for the regret-averse competitive firm under price uncertainty," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 5(2), pages 279-295, December.
    6. Jhunjhunwala, Tanushree, 2021. "Searching to avoid regret: An experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 298-319.
    7. van Dijk, Wilco W. & van der Pligt, Joop, 1997. "The Impact of Probability and Magnitude of Outcome on Disappointment and Elation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 277-284, March.
    8. Ming Li & Dipjyoti Majumdar, 2010. "A Psychologically Based Model of Voter Turnout," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 12(5), pages 979-1002, October.
    9. Kobana Abukari & Isaac Otchere, 2020. "Dominance of hybrid contratum strategies over momentum and contrarian strategies: half a century of evidence," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 34(4), pages 471-505, December.
    10. Peng Li & Ju Liu & Cuiping Wei, 2019. "A Dynamic Decision Making Method Based on GM(1,1) Model with Pythagorean Fuzzy Numbers for Selecting Waste Disposal Enterprises," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-19, October.
    11. Vaida Kaduskeviciute & Sigitas Urbonavicius, 2019. "Webrooming: A Way of Dealing with Uncertainties in Purchasing," Tržište/Market, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, vol. 31(2), pages 139-152.
    12. Qin, Jie, 2015. "A model of regret, investor behavior, and market turbulence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 150-174.
    13. Grenet, Julien & He, YingHua & Kübler, Dorothea, 2022. "Preference Discovery in University Admissions: The Case for Dynamic Multioffer Mechanisms," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 130(6), pages 1-1.
    14. Sugden, Robert & Wang, Mengjie & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2019. "Take it or leave it: Experimental evidence on the effect of time-limited offers on consumer behaviour," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 1-23.
    15. Chorus, Caspar G., 2014. "Benefit of adding an alternative to one׳s choice set: A regret minimization perspective," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 49-59.
    16. Camille Magron & Maxime Merli, 2012. "Stocks repurchase and sophistication of individual investors," Working Papers of LaRGE Research Center 2012-02, Laboratoire de Recherche en Gestion et Economie (LaRGE), Université de Strasbourg.
    17. Michaël Lainé, 2014. "Vers une alternative au paradigme de la rationalité ? Victoires et déboires du programme spinoziste en économie," Post-Print hal-01335618, HAL.
    18. Enrico G. De Giorgi & Thierry Post, 2011. "Loss Aversion with a State-Dependent Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(6), pages 1094-1110, June.
    19. Tonin, Stefania, 2018. "Citizens’ perspectives on marine protected areas as a governance strategy to effectively preserve marine ecosystem services and biodiversity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 189-200.
    20. Ernst Fehr & Holger Herz & Tom Wilkening, 2013. "The Lure of Authority: Motivation and Incentive Effects of Power," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(4), pages 1325-1359, June.
    21. Bikhchandani, Sushil & Segal, Uzi, 2014. "Transitive regret over statistically independent lotteries," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 237-248.

    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:3:p:265-275. 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.