scholarly journals Not all respondents use a multiplicative utility function in choice experiments for health state valuations, which should be reflected in the elicitation format (or statistical analysis)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcel F. Jonker ◽  
Richard Norman
1995 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 289-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Dolan ◽  
Claire Gudex

2004 ◽  
Vol 92 (12) ◽  
pp. 1336-1341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Bossuyt ◽  
Peep Stalmeier ◽  
Mirjam Sprangers ◽  
Carlo van Dongen ◽  
Saskia Middeldorp ◽  
...  

SummaryDetermining the optimal duration of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy for patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) requires a weighting of the benefits and risks of treatment. The objectives of our study were to investigate patient variability in health state valuations associated with VKA therapy and treatment preferences, and to investigate the extent to which valuations and treatment preferences are associated with prior experience with these health states and other patient characteristics. Valuations of outcomes after VTE scaled from 0 (tantamount to death) to 1 (tantamount to perfect health) were elicited from 53 patients who had experienced VTE, 23 patients who had experienced major bleeding during treatment, and 48 patients with the post-thrombotic syndrome. In addition, patients’ treatment preferences were evaluated using treatment trade-off questions. Median health state valuations ranged from 0.33 for ‘non-fatal haemorrhagic stroke’ to 0.96 for ‘no VKA treatment’. Variability between patients was substantial. Patients’ treatment preferences also varied: 25% of patients chose cessation of treatment, regardless of the probability of recurrent VTE presented, whereas 23% of patients were never willing to choose cessation of treatment. Differences in valuations and treatment preferences were not associated with type of event experienced. Due to the substantial and unpredictable variability in valuations and treatment preferences, recommendations regarding treatment duration should be tailored to patients’ specific values and concerns.


2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 183-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel L. McFadden ◽  
Albert C. Bemmaor ◽  
Francis G. Caro ◽  
Jeff Dominitz ◽  
Byung-Hill Jun ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (8) ◽  
pp. 993-1001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcel F. Jonker ◽  
Bas Donkers ◽  
Esther W. de Bekker-Grob ◽  
Elly A. Stolk

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 380-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aki Tsuchiya ◽  
Nick Bansback ◽  
Arne Risa Hole ◽  
Brendan Mulhern

Background. The EQ-5D instrument has 5 dimensions. This article reports on the effects of manipulating a) the order in which the 5 dimensions are presented (appearing first v. last), b) splitting of the composite dimensions (“pain or discomfort” and “anxiety or depression”), and c) removing or “bolting off” 1 of the 5 EQ-5D dimensions at a time. The effects were examined in 2 contexts: 1) self-reporting health and 2) health state valuations. Methods. Three different types of discrete choice experiments (DCE) including a duration attribute were designed. An online survey with 12 subtypes, each with 10 DCE tasks, was designed and completed by 2494 members of the UK general public. Results. Of the 3 manipulations in the self-reporting context, only b) splitting anxiety or depression had a significant effect. In the health state valuation context, b) splitting level 5 pain or discomfort (relative to pain) and splitting level 5 anxiety or depression (relative to anxiety) had significant effects as did c) bolting off dimensions. Conclusions. We find that the values given to certain health dimensions are sensitive to the way in which it is described and the other health dimensions presented. Of particular interest is the effect of splitting composite dimensions: a given EQ-5D(-5L) profile may mean different things depending on whether the profile is used to self-report one’s health or to value hypothetical states, so that the health state values of EQ-5D(-5L) in population tariffs may not correspond to the states that patients self-report themselves in.


1996 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 521-531 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Gudex ◽  
P. Dolan ◽  
P. Kind ◽  
A. Williams

1996 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 609-615 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Dolan ◽  
Paul Kind

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document