IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v11y2002i1p71-85.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF‐36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain

Author

Listed:
  • William Hollingworth
  • Richard A. Deyo
  • Sean D. Sullivan
  • Scott S. Emerson
  • Darryl T. Gray
  • Jeffrey G. Jarvik

Abstract

Recent research has derived preference scores from the SF‐36. We compare the practicality and construct validity of SF‐36 derived preference scores with directly elicited time trade off (TTO) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. In this observational study, low back pain (LBP), patients were asked to complete disease specific, generic (SF‐36), and health state preference (VAS and TTO) instruments. Baseline SF‐36 responses were converted to preference scores using six published algorithms. Response rates for the SF‐36 derived and TTO preference values were 354 of 379 (93%) and 303 of 379 (80%), respectively. Thirty patients were excluded from the TTO exercise because of difficulties comprehending the scaling task. Choice based methods (standard gamble, TTO) yielded higher and more uniform estimates of preference (0.77–0.79) than non‐choice based methods (VAS) (0.42–0.70). Directly elicited TTO values were variable and had less power to distinguish among patients with differing severity of LBP. All SF‐36 derived preferences exhibited a minimum threshold implying a potential floor effect for severely ill patients. SF‐36 derived preferences demonstrated good practicality and construct validity in this setting, however different methods will yield disparate estimates of marginal benefit. This emphasises the need for a standardised algorithm for deriving SF‐36 preference scores. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • William Hollingworth & Richard A. Deyo & Sean D. Sullivan & Scott S. Emerson & Darryl T. Gray & Jeffrey G. Jarvik, 2002. "The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF‐36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 71-85, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:11:y:2002:i:1:p:71-85
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.650
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.650
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph C. Gardiner & Marianne Huebner & James Jetton & Cathy J. Bradley, 2000. "Power and sample assessments for tests of hypotheses on cost‐effectiveness ratios," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(3), pages 227-234, April.
    2. Brooks, Richard AU -, 1996. "EuroQol: the current state of play," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 53-72, July.
    3. Niklas Zethraeus & Magnus Johannesson, 1999. "A comparison of patient and social tariff values derived from the time trade‐off method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(6), pages 541-545, September.
    4. Dolan, Paul & Kind, Paul, 1996. "Inconsistency and health state valuations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 609-615, February.
    5. G. Ardine De Wit & Jan J.V. Busschbach & Frank Th. De Charro, 2000. "Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 109-126, March.
    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. Søgaard, Rikke & Kløjgaard, Mirja Elisabeth & Olsen, Jens, 2010. "Methods for cost-effectiveness evaluation alongside trials in spine surgery," DaCHE discussion papers 2010:5, University of Southern Denmark, Dache - Danish Centre for Health Economics.
    2. Christine McDonough & Anna Tosteson, 2007. "Measuring Preferences for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 93-106, February.
    3. 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.
    4. Stavros Petrou & Christine Hockley, 2005. "An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(11), pages 1169-1189, November.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:11:y:2002:i:1:p:71-85. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley Content Delivery). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.