IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v24y2004i6p625-633.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of 3 Valuation Methods for Temporary Health States in Patients Treated with Oral Anticoagulants

Author

Listed:
  • Mirjam Locadia

    (Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

  • Peep F. M. Stalmeier

    (Department of Medical Technology Assessment and the Joint Centre for Radiation Oncology Arnhem-Nijmegen (RADIAN), University Medical Centre Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands)

  • Frans J. Oort

    (Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

  • Martin H. Prins

    (Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Academic Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, the Netherlands)

  • Mirjam A. G. Sprangers

    (Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

  • Patrick M. M. Bossuyt

    (Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

Abstract

Background. The application of the time tradeoff (TTO) method in temporary health states may lead to less valid results because an unrealistic scenario is presented to patients. The chained TTO has been proposed to solve this problem . Objectives. To compare a chained TTO method with a conventional TTO method in the valuation of temporary health states, in terms of consistency and reliability. To compare both TTO methods with direct rating. Patients and Methods . Eighty-four patients treated with oral anticoagulants were interviewed twice. During the 1st interview, values for 5 temporary health states were obtained with a rank ordering procedure, direct rating, and the chained TTO method. During the 2nd interview, either the 1st interview was repeated (n = 30) or health state values were obtained with the conventional TTO method (n = 54). Consistency was assessed by comparing the 3 valuation methods with the rank ordering procedure. Generalizability theory was used to assess reliability. Results . The 3 methods produced significantly different valuations of health states. Chained TTO values were higher than values obtained with direct rating and the conventional TTO. Consistency and reliability did not differ across the 3 methods . Conclusion. The authors found no evidence for a difference in consistency and reliability between the chained TTO method and the conventional TTO method in the valuation of temporary health states. As direct rating is simpler to administer than both TTO methods, one could consider using direct ratings for the valuation of temporary health states. Biases associated with the conventional and the chained TTO method are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Mirjam Locadia & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Frans J. Oort & Martin H. Prins & Mirjam A. G. Sprangers & Patrick M. M. Bossuyt, 2004. "A Comparison of 3 Valuation Methods for Temporary Health States in Patients Treated with Oral Anticoagulants," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(6), pages 625-633, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:24:y:2004:i:6:p:625-633
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04271042
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X04271042
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X04271042?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. Johanna Cook & Jeff Richardson & Andrew Street, 1994. "A cost utility analysis of treatment options for gallstone disease: Methodological issues and results," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(3), pages 157-168, May.
    2. Johnston, Katharine & Brown, Jackie & Gerard, Karen & O'Hanlon, Moira & Morton, Alison, 1998. "Valuing temporary and chronic health states associated with breast screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 213-222, July.
    3. Dolan, Paul & Roberts, Jennifer, 2002. "To what extent can we explain time trade-off values from other information about respondents?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 919-929, March.
    4. Krabbe, Paul F. M. & Essink-Bot, Marie-Louise & Bonsel, Gouke J., 1997. "The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(11), pages 1641-1652, December.
    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. Karen Gerard & Katharine Johnston & Jackie Brown, 1999. "The role of a pre‐scored multi‐attribute health classification measure in validating condition‐specific health state descriptions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(8), pages 685-699, December.
    2. Kristina Secnik & Louis S. Matza & Suzi Cottrell & Eric Edgell & Dominic Tilden & Sally Mannix, 2005. "Health State Utilities for Childhood Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Based on Parent Preferences in the United Kingdom," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(1), pages 56-70, January.
    3. Peep F. M. Stalmeier, 2002. "Discrepancies between Chained and Classic Utilities Induced by Anchoring with Occasional Adjustments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(1), pages 53-64, February.
    4. Kristina Boye & Louis Matza & Kimberly Walter & Kate Brunt & Andrew Palsgrove & Aodan Tynan, 2011. "Utilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(3), pages 219-230, June.
    5. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.
    6. 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.
    7. Kharroubi, Samer & Brazier, John E. & O'Hagan, Anthony, 2007. "Modelling covariates for the SF-6D standard gamble health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(6), pages 1242-1252, March.
    8. Agata Łaszewska & Ayesha Sajjad & Jan Busschbach & Judit Simon & Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen, 2022. "Conceptual Framework for Optimised Proxy Value Set Selection Through Supra-National Value Set Development for the EQ-5D Instruments," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(12), pages 1221-1234, December.
    9. Victoria Brennan & Simon Dixon, 2013. "Incorporating Process Utility into Quality Adjusted Life Years: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(8), pages 677-691, August.
    10. 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.
    11. Katharine S. Gries & Dean A. Regier & Scott D. Ramsey & Donald L. Patrick, 2017. "Utility Estimates of Disease-Specific Health States in Prostate Cancer from Three Different Perspectives," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 375-384, June.
    12. Asrul Akmal Shafie & Annushiah Vasan Thakumar, 2020. "Multiplicative modelling of EQ-5D-3L TTO and VAS values," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(9), pages 1411-1420, December.
    13. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
    14. 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.
    15. D. Stratmann‐Schoene & T. Kuehn & R. Kreienberg & R. Leidl, 2006. "A preference‐based index for the SF‐12," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 553-564, June.
    16. Floortje Nooten & Jan Busschbach & Michel Agthoven & Job Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2018. "What should we know about the person behind a TTO?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(9), pages 1207-1211, December.
    17. Diego Ossa & Andrew Briggs & Emma McIntosh & Warren Cowell & Tim Littlewood & Mark Sculpher, 2007. "Recombinant Erythropoietin for Chemotherapy-Related Anaemia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 223-237, March.
    18. Edward J. D. Webb & Paul Kind & David Meads & Adam Martin, 2021. "Does a health crisis change how we value health?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(10), pages 2547-2560, September.
    19. Annemieke De Ridder & Diana De Graeve, 2005. "Order bias in estimates of willingness to pay for drugs to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(2), pages 146-151, June.
    20. Jing Shen & Matthew Breckons & Luke Vale & Robert Pickard, 2019. "Using Time Trade-Off Methods to Elicit Short-Term Utilities Associated with Treatments for Bulbar Urethral Stricture," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 551-558, December.

    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:24:y:2004:i:6:p:625-633. 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.