IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v23y2003i2p140-149.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Measurement Properties of 2 Direct Preference Instruments Administered with and without Hypothetical Marker States

Author

Listed:
  • Holger J. Schünemann
  • Lauren Griffith
  • David Stubbing
  • Roger Goldstein
  • Gordon H. Guyatt

Abstract

Background . Health economists recommend that when patients provide preference ratings of their own health state using utility and health state preference measures such as the feeling thermometer (FT) and standard gamble (SG), they first rate hypothetical health states (clinical marker states [CMS]). However, there is no evidence to support improvement in measurement properties with the use of CMS. The authors evaluated validity and responsiveness of the SG and FT with and without administration of the CMS. Methods . Respiratory rehabilitation improves health-related quality of life in patients with chronic airflow limitation. The authors randomized 84 patients undergoing pulmonary rehabilitation to administration of the FT and SG with (FT+ or SG+) or without (FT- or SG-) CMS before and after a standard 12-week respiratory rehabilitation program. Patients also completed the Health Utilities Index 3 (HUI3), the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ), and the St. George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) to evaluate longitudinal validity. Results . Marker state status did not significantly affect baseline scores on either FT or SG (FT+ 0.54, FT- 0.60, SG+ 0.68, SG- 0.66, on a scale from 0 [ dead ] to 1.0 [ full health ]). The improvement after the rehabilitation program was 0.14 (P

Suggested Citation

  • Holger J. Schünemann & Lauren Griffith & David Stubbing & Roger Goldstein & Gordon H. Guyatt, 2003. "A Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Measurement Properties of 2 Direct Preference Instruments Administered with and without Hypothetical Marker States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 23(2), pages 140-149, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:23:y:2003:i:2:p:140-149
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X03251243
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X03251243
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X03251243?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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. J. Leighton Read & Robert J. Quinn & Donald M. Berwick & Harvey V. Fineberg & Milton C. Weinstein, 1984. "Preferences for Health Outcomes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 4(3), pages 315-329, August.
    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. Levy, Moshe & Nir, Adi Rizansky, 2012. "The utility of health and wealth," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 379-392.
    2. Claire Gudex & Paul Kind & Harmanna van Dalen & Mary-Alison Durand & Jenny Morris & Alan Williams, 1993. "Comparing scaling methods for health state valuations - Rosser revisited," Working Papers 107chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    3. Dolan, Paul & Jones-Lee, Michael, 1997. "The time trade-off: A note on the effect of lifetime reallocation of consumption and discounting," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 731-739, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Dolan, P. & Gudex, C. & Kind, P. & Williams, A., 1996. "Valuing health states: A comparison of methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 209-231, April.
    6. 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.
    7. David Parkin & Nancy Devlin, 2006. "Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost‐utility analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 653-664, July.
    8. Raisa B. Deber & Vivek Goel, 1990. "Using Explicit Decision Rules to Manage Issues of Justice, Risk, and Ethics in Decision Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 10(3), pages 181-194, August.
    9. Julie Ratcliffe & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Tara Symonds & Martin Brown, 2009. "Using DCE and ranking data to estimate cardinal values for health states for deriving a preference‐based single index from the sexual quality of life questionnaire," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(11), pages 1261-1276, November.
    10. Peter E. Krumins & Stephan D. Fihn & Daniel L. Kent, 1988. "Symptom Severity and Patients' Values in the Decision to Perform a Transurethral Resection of the Prostate," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, February.
    11. Eldon Spackman & Stewart Richmond & Mark Sculpher & Martin Bland & Stephen Brealey & Rhian Gabe & Ann Hopton & Ada Keding & Harriet Lansdown & Sara Perren & David Torgerson & Ian Watt & Hugh MacPherso, 2014. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Acupuncture, Counselling and Usual Care in Treating Patients with Depression: The Results of the ACUDep Trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-12, November.
    12. Milton C. Weinstein, 1981. "Economic Assessments of Medical Practices and Technologies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 1(4), pages 309-330, December.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. George W. Torrance & David Feeny & William Furlong, 2001. "Visual Analog Scales," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(4), pages 329-334, August.
    16. 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.
    17. Marisa Santos & Monica A. C. T. Cintra & Andrea L. Monteiro & Braulio Santos & Fernando Gusmão-filho & Mônica Viegas Andrade & Kenya Noronha & Luciane N. Cruz & Suzi Camey & Bernardo Tura & Paul Kin, 2016. "Brazilian Valuation of EQ-5D-3L Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 253-263, February.
    18. Anne Spencer, 2003. "The TTO method and procedural invariance," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 655-668, August.
    19. Francis Asenso‐Boadi & Tim J. Peters & Joanna Coast, 2008. "Exploring differences in empirical time preference rates for health: an application of meta‐regression," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(2), pages 235-248, February.
    20. Peter Hertzman, 2005. "The cost effectiveness of orlistat in a 1-year weight-management programme for treating overweight and obese patients in Sweden," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 23(10), pages 1007-1020, October.

    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:medema:v:23:y:2003:i:2:p:140-149. 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.