Types of inconsistency in health-state utility judgments

Baron, Jonathan; Ubel, Peter A.

doi:10.1016/s0749-5978(02)00019-5

Cited by 16 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We thought the wording in terms of prevention would improve the acceptability of PTO questions in the French healthcare context, as suggested by the positive results of two pre-tests among healthcare professionals and the response rate of 56% to the follow-up study. Unpublished results suggested also that PTO numbers would not differ from saving to preventing wording [36].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade‐off responses

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ubel et al [21] and Baron et al [36] found internal inconsistency in the case of labelled diseases (specific diagnoses) as opposed to health-related quality of life vignettes. Besides changes in PTO responses related to different health state descriptions, the various framings of PTO questions could also yield different responses [20,35].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade‐off responses

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The PTO assessment procedure does not ask an individual to judge strength of preference directly, but rather infers strength of preference from tradeoffs that an individual will make between health state improvements and the number of persons undergoing an improvement. The PTO literature has not as yet drawn upon the considerable literature devoted to the theory of strength of preference, a paper by Baron and Ubel being a notable exception [4]. Treating strength of preference as the basis for value has a long history in economics [15].…”

Section: What Is the Relationship Between Person Tradeoffs And The Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A fundamental interpretation of such a PTO equivalence is that the value of the health improvement 'paraplegia to full health' is three tenths the value of saving one life [1,2]. Adding an additional assumption that health improvements can be calculated as differences between other improvements enables a compact representation of the value of achieving one particular health condition from a minimum other [3][4][5]. For example, it is common to assume that an improvement from imminent death to full health is a value of 1.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Person tradeoffs and the problem of risk

Doctor¹,

Miyamoto²

2005

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, the person tradeoff method has received much attention because it directs one to value health improvements of those other than one's self. As a result, several researchers have suggested that the person tradeoff measures preferences in pharmaceutical and health economic analysis more accurately than the standard gamble, which many consider the gold standard approach. However, the person tradeoff exercise as it is currently practiced assumes a riskless world where policy decisions lead to certain societal outcomes. In reality, health policy decisions are made under risk or uncertainty. Evidence suggests riskless and risky values differ for health improvements over persons. A problem with using the riskless person tradeoff method in economic evaluation of health is that the method conflates a change in the objects of measurement (i.e., a change from health gains with respect to self to gains with respect to others) with a change in the measurement context (i.e., a change from a risk context to a risk-free one). Therefore, it is wise to examine what is sacrificed by ignoring risk and uncertainty inherent in health policy decision making. Given that the choices we make in the context of risk are often different than those we make under certainty, the authors argue that if one assumes context is important, the measurement of health improvements over persons should then be carried out in the context of risk. The authors propose the application of standard methods from utility theory to carry out elicitations for valuing health improvements of others within the context of risky choices. In addition, an alternative perspective of utility is discussed that in comparison puts forth a context free notion of utility.

show abstract

“…Computer-based preference elicitation tools have been available for more than 15 years [17-23] with later use of the Internet [24-28]. Many preference elicitation tools, and studies employing them, are concerned with the psychology of preference elicitation[29,30] and are therefore less concerned with selection bias than Internet-based epidemiological[31,32], behavioural[33,34] or therapeutic studies[35,36].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A pilot Internet "Value of Health" Panel: recruitment, participation and compliance

Stein

Dyer

Crabb

et al. 2006

Health Qual Life Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To pilot using a panel of members of the public to provide preference data via the Internet Methods: A stratified random sample of members of the general public was recruited and familiarised with the standard gamble procedure using an Internet based tool. Health states were perdiodically presented in "sets" corresponding to different conditions, during the study. The following were described: Recruitment (proportion of people approached who were trained); Participation (a) the proportion of people trained who provided any preferences and (b) the proportion of panel members who contributed to each "set" of values; and Compliance (the proportion, per participant, of preference tasks which were completed). The influence of covariates on these outcomes was investigated using univariate and multivariate analyses.Results: A panel of 112 people was recruited. 23% of those approached (n = 5,320) responded to the invitation, and 24% of respondents (n = 1,215) were willing to participate (net = 5.5%). However, eventual recruitment rates, following training, were low (2.1% of those approached). Recruitment from areas of high socioeconomic deprivation and among ethnic minority communities was low. Eighteen sets of health state descriptions were considered over 14 months. 74% of panel members carried out at least one valuation task. People from areas of higher socioeconomic deprivation and unmarried people were less likely to participate. An average of 41% of panel members expressed preferences on each set of descriptions. Compliance ranged from 3% to 100%. Conclusion:It is feasible to establish a panel of members of the general public to express preferences on a wide range of health state descriptions using the Internet, although differential recruitment and attrition are important challenges. Particular attention to recruitment and retention in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation and among ethnic minority communities is necessary. Nevertheless, the panel approach to preference measurement using the Internet offers the potential to provide specific utility data in a responsive manner for use in economic evaluations and to address some of the outstanding methodological uncertainties in this field.

show abstract

Types of inconsistency in health-state utility judgments

Cited by 16 publications

References 25 publications

Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade‐off responses

Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade‐off responses

Person tradeoffs and the problem of risk

A pilot Internet "Value of Health" Panel: recruitment, participation and compliance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About