Correcting Biases in Standard Gamble and Time Tradeoff Utilities

Osch, Sylvie M. C. van; Wakker, Peter P.; Hout, Wilbert B. van den; Stiggelbout, Anne M.

doi:10.1177/0272989x04268955

Cited by 105 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although this makes sense, it depends on several assumptions, including, as indicated, constant proportional tradeoffs and for instance the absence of discounting. Since the introduction of TTO [6] and its initial development, a considerable body of evidence has emerged showing that these assumptions do not always hold and, consequently, the way TTO is framed may influence the value given to health states [1,[7][8][9]. Therefore, differences in TTO values may arise from lack of standardisation of the TTO procedure.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What should we know about the person behind a TTO?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What should we know about the person behind a TTO?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although the TTO score would decrease, it seems unlikely that there was a change in the patient's underlying quality of life or of their preference for health states. Although the utility function has been described as being concave over time in most people (30,41,42), those who responded in this manner would have a step function for utility over time, which would represent both a range restriction bias and an extreme example of nonconstant proportional TTO. Although other authors have suggested ways to correct TTO scores by adjusting for time preference bias (42), these methods would not apply in our extreme cases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating Preference Scores in Conventional and Home Nocturnal Hemodialysis Patients

McFarlane

Pierratos

Bayoumi

et al. 2007

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have reported higher quality of life in patients who receive home nocturnal hemodialysis (HNHD) than conventional in-center hemodialysis (IHD). The optimal method for eliciting preferences from dialysis patients remains undefined, and there may be unique methodologic concerns in this population. Patients' preferences for IHD (n ‫؍‬ 20) and HNHD (n ‫؍‬ 24) were studied using the standard gamble (SG), time trade-off (TTO), and modified willingness to pay (WTP) methods. This report describes experience with operationalizing these three techniques in this population. A higher preference for HNHD was found with all measures, with significant differences observed with the SG ( In addition, qualitative issues arose during TTO and WTP interviews that seemed to influence the interpretation of these preference scores. In the TTO, time willing to trade became oriented toward the next pivotal life event, with a failure of the requirement for a constant proportional time trade-off. WTP preferences were oriented toward the smallest survival stipend. These issues represent range restriction biases. No significant issues arose during the SG interviews. HNHD patients expressed a greater preference for current health than IHD patients. The operational performance of SG was good in this study, whereas biases and methodologic concerns were identified with the TTO and WTP in this population.

show abstract

“…Health state valuations of current heath states or future potential outcomes provide an assessment of utilities which are considered to be a measure of the preference for current health or for each potential future outcome. [5,6] Although controversy exists about the degree to which the standard gamble or time trade-off may provide more desirable estimates of utility [7], there is general agreement that the scores obtained from the rating scale method do not provide utilities; rather the scores provide only an assessment of preference.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%