IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v32y2012i1p11-30.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development and Validation of a Utility Weighting Function for the Patient-Oriented Prostate Utility Scale (PORPUS)

Author

Listed:
  • George Tomlinson
  • Karen E. Bremner
  • Paul Ritvo
  • Gary Naglie
  • Murray D. Krahn

Abstract

Background . Previously, we developed a prostate cancer (PC)-specific health state classification system, the Patient Oriented Prostate Utility Scale (PORPUS). In this study, we developed a scoring system to allow indirect calculation of utilities from the PORPUS. Methods . We interviewed 234 PC outpatients, including those with newly diagnosed and metastatic disease, to obtain rating scale (RS) values on 4 to 6 levels of each of the 10 attributes of the PORPUS, and on 10 corner states (worst level on 1 attribute, best on 9). Patients also completed standard gamble (SG) and RS tasks on 4 multiattribute states (impotence and pain corner states, mild and severe PC symptoms). We used the RS and SG scores for multiattribute states to determine a risk aversion function for mapping values to utilities. We then tested 15 different strategies to estimate the multiattribute utility function (MAUF), using the single attribute disutilities for each level of the 10 PORPUS attributes, and the disutilities for the corner states. The root mean squared error (RMSE) of prediction of the SG on the 4 multiattribute states was used to identify the optimal strategy and scoring system. Results . The optimal strategy gave an RMSE of 0.06. Comparison of mean MAUF-predicted utilities to directly elicited SG utilities for the 2 multiattribute states from patients in 2 previously published studies ( n = 248 and n = 141) supported the validity of the MAUF. Conclusions . The scoring system together with the PORPUS comprise an indirect utility instrument, the PORPUS-U, which can be used in clinical and research settings.

Suggested Citation

  • George Tomlinson & Karen E. Bremner & Paul Ritvo & Gary Naglie & Murray D. Krahn, 2012. "Development and Validation of a Utility Weighting Function for the Patient-Oriented Prostate Utility Scale (PORPUS)," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(1), pages 11-30, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:32:y:2012:i:1:p:11-30
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X11407203
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X11407203
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X11407203?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. Dolan, Paul & Sutton, Matthew, 1997. "Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1519-1530, May.
    2. Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
    3. Marie‐Louise Essink‐Bot & Marlies E. A. Stouthard & Gouke J. Bonsel, 1993. "Generalizability of valuations on health states collected with the EuroQol-super-c‐questionnaire," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 2(3), pages 237-246, October.
    4. Stevens, Katherine & McCabe, Christopher & Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer, 2007. "Multi-attribute utility function or statistical inference models: A comparison of health state valuation models using the HUI2 health state classification system," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 992-1002, September.
    5. Menzel, Paul & Dolan, Paul & Richardson, Jeff & Olsen, Jan Abel, 2002. "The role of adaptation to disability and disease in health state valuation: a preliminary normative analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(12), pages 2149-2158, 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. John Brazier & Jennifer Roberts & Donna Rowen, 2012. "Methods for Developing Preference-based Measures of Health," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 37, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Anirban Basu & William Dale & Arthur Elstein & David Meltzer, 2009. "A linear index for predicting joint health‐states utilities from single health‐states utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 403-419, April.
    3. Tsuchiya, Aki & Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer, 2006. "Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 334-346, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Rachel Mann & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya, 2009. "A comparison of patient and general population weightings of EQ‐5D dimensions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 363-372, March.
    6. Dolan, Paul & Kavetsos, Georgios & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2013. "Sick but satisfied: The impact of life and health satisfaction on choice between health scenarios," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 708-714.
    7. Mukuria, Clara & Brazier, John, 2013. "Valuing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D health states using subjective well-being: A secondary analysis of patient data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 97-105.
    8. 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.
    9. Lamu, Admassu N. & Olsen, Jan Abel, 2016. "The relative importance of health, income and social relations for subjective well-being: An integrative analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 176-185.
    10. Louise Longworth & Stirling Bryan, 2003. "An empirical comparison of EQ‐5D and SF‐6D in liver transplant patients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(12), pages 1061-1067, December.
    11. Brazier, J, 2005. "Current state of the art in preference-based measures of health and avenues for further research," MPRA Paper 29762, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Stevens, Katherine & McCabe, Christopher & Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer, 2007. "Multi-attribute utility function or statistical inference models: A comparison of health state valuation models using the HUI2 health state classification system," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 992-1002, September.
    13. Paul Dolan & Henry Lee & Tessa Peasgood, 2012. "Losing Sight of the Wood for the Trees," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(11), pages 1035-1049, November.
    14. Samer A. Kharroubi & Yara Beyh & Marwa Diab El Harake & Dalia Dawoud & Donna Rowen & John Brazier, 2020. "Examining the Feasibility and Acceptability of Valuing the Arabic Version of SF-6D in a Lebanese Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-15, February.
    15. Nick Bansback & Huiying Sun & Daphne P. Guh & Xin Li & Bohdan Nosyk & Susan Griffin & Paul G. Barnett & Aslam H. Anis, 2008. "Impact of the recall period on measuring health utilities for acute events," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(12), pages 1413-1419.
    16. Clarke, Philip & Erreygers, Guido, 2020. "Defining and measuring health poverty," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    17. Francesca Cornaglia & Naomi E. Feldman & Andrew Leigh, 2014. "Crime and Mental Well-Being," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 49(1), pages 110-140.
    18. Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    19. Stavros Petrou & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Helen Dakin & Louise Longworth & Mark Oppe & Robert Froud & Alastair Gray, 2015. "Preferred Reporting Items for Studies Mapping onto Preference-Based Outcome Measures: The MAPS Statement," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(6), pages 1-8, August.
    20. 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.

    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:32:y:2012:i:1:p:11-30. 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.