IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v47y1998i2p213-222.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing temporary and chronic health states associated with breast screening

Author

Listed:
  • Johnston, Katharine
  • Brown, Jackie
  • Gerard, Karen
  • O'Hanlon, Moira
  • Morton, Alison

Abstract

The aim of this study was to derive quality of life values for the four key breast screening outcomes (true negative, false positive, true positive and false negative), including the quality of life effects of the screening and treatment processes. In doing so, methodological issues in health status measurement were explored, in particular the valuation of temporary health states. The true negative and false positive descriptions were temporary health states, lasting for short term durations (12Â months) and the true positive and false negative outcomes were chronic health states lasting for long term durations (rest of life). Descriptions of breast screening outcomes were valued using the time trade-off technique and the visual analogue scale. Paired comparisons between TTO values for states with the same duration found a difference between the true negative and the false positive time trade-off values but no difference for true positive and false negative descriptions. The TTO values for the false positive were low. The study highlights several important methodological issues such as the use of the two stage procedure for valuing temporary health states, the impact of duration on values, the impact of anchor points, and the importance of qualitative analysis of respondents values. Further empirical testing of all these issues is recommended.

Suggested Citation

  • Johnston, Katharine & Brown, Jackie & Gerard, Karen & O'Hanlon, Moira & Morton, Alison, 1998. "Valuing temporary and chronic health states associated with breast screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 213-222, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:47:y:1998:i:2:p:213-222
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(98)00065-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Karen Gerard & Katharine Johnston & Jackie Brown, 1999. "The role of a pre‐scored multi‐attribute health classification measure in validating condition‐specific health state descriptions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(8), pages 685-699, December.
    2. Anne Spencer, 2000. "Testing the Additive Independence Assumption in the QALY Model," Working Papers 427, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    3. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.
    4. Mirjam Locadia & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Frans J. Oort & Martin H. Prins & Mirjam A. G. Sprangers & Patrick M. M. Bossuyt, 2004. "A Comparison of 3 Valuation Methods for Temporary Health States in Patients Treated with Oral Anticoagulants," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(6), pages 625-633, November.
    5. Kristina Secnik & Louis S. Matza & Suzi Cottrell & Eric Edgell & Dominic Tilden & Sally Mannix, 2005. "Health State Utilities for Childhood Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Based on Parent Preferences in the United Kingdom," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(1), pages 56-70, January.
    6. Kristina Boye & Louis Matza & Kimberly Walter & Kate Brunt & Andrew Palsgrove & Aodan Tynan, 2011. "Utilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(3), pages 219-230, June.
    7. Anne Spencer, 2004. "The implications of linking questions within the SG and TTO methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(8), pages 807-818, August.
    8. Peasgood, T & Ward, S & Brazier, J, 2010. "A review and meta-analysis of health state utility values in breast cancer," MPRA Paper 29950, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Peep F. M. Stalmeier, 2002. "Discrepancies between Chained and Classic Utilities Induced by Anchoring with Occasional Adjustments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(1), pages 53-64, February.
    10. Peter P. Wakker & Sylvia J. T. Jansen & Anne M. Stiggelbout, 2004. "Anchor Levels as a New Tool for the Theory and Measurement of Multiattribute Utility," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(4), pages 217-234, December.
    11. Sylvia J.T. Jansen & Anne M. Stiggelbout & Peter P. Wakker & Marianne A. Nooij & Evert M. Noordijk & Job Kievit, 2000. "Unstable Preferences:," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(1), pages 62-71, January.
    12. Jing Shen & Matthew Breckons & Luke Vale & Robert Pickard, 2019. "Using Time Trade-Off Methods to Elicit Short-Term Utilities Associated with Treatments for Bulbar Urethral Stricture," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 551-558, December.
    13. Anne Spencer, 2000. "Testing the Additive Independence Assumption in the QALY Model," Working Papers 427, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    14. Lisa Prosser & James Hammitt & Ron Keren, 2007. "Measuring Health Preferences for Use in Cost-Utility and Cost-Benefit Analyses of Interventions in Children," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(9), pages 713-726, September.

    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:eee:socmed:v:47:y:1998:i:2:p:213-222. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.