IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0151905.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Developing a Valuation Function for the Preference-Based Multiple Sclerosis Index: Comparison of Standard Gamble and Rating Scale

Author

Listed:
  • Ayse Kuspinar
  • Simon Pickard
  • Nancy E Mayo

Abstract

Objective: The standard gamble (SG) and rating scale (RS) are two approaches that can be employed to elicit health state preferences from patients in order to inform decision making. The objectives of this study were: (i) to contribute evidence towards the similarities and differences in the SG and the RS to reflect patient preferences, and (ii) to develop a multi-attribute utility function (MAUF) (i.e., scoring algorithm) for the PBMSI. Study Design: Two samples were recruited for the study. The first sample provided cross-sectional data to generate the preference weights which were then used to develop (D) the MAUFD. The distribution of SG and RS were compared across levels of perceived difficulty. The second sample provided additional data to validate (V) the MAUF, termed MAUFV. Results: The mean RS values ranged from 0.39 to 0.65, whereas the mean SG values were much higher ranging from 0.80 to 0.91. Correlations between the two methods were very low ranging from -0.29 to 0.15. Bland-Altman plots revealed the extent of differences in values produced by the two methods. Conclusion: In contemplating trade-offs in the selection of a preference-based elicitation approach for a MAUF that could guide clinical decision making, results suggest the RS is preferable in terms of feasibility and validity for MS patients. The PBMSI with patient preferences shows promise as a measure of health-related quality of life for MS.

Suggested Citation

  • Ayse Kuspinar & Simon Pickard & Nancy E Mayo, 2016. "Developing a Valuation Function for the Preference-Based Multiple Sclerosis Index: Comparison of Standard Gamble and Rating Scale," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-20, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0151905
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151905
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151905
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151905&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0151905?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dolan, Paul & Sutton, Matthew, 1997. "Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1519-1530, May.
    2. W Furlong & D Feeny & G Torrance & C Goldsmith & S DePauw & Z Zhu & M Denton & M Boyle, 1998. "Multiplicative Multi-Attribute Utility Function for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) System: A Technical Report," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 1998-11, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    3. Angela Robinson & Graham Loomes & Michael Jones-Lee, 2001. "Visual Analog Scales, Standard Gambles, and Relative Risk Aversion," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 17-27, February.
    4. Han Bleichrodt, 2002. "A new explanation for the difference between time trade‐off utilities and standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 447-456, July.
    5. Claire Gudex, 1994. "Standard Gamble user manual: props and self-completion methods," Working Papers 021cheop, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Valerie Seror, 2008. "Fitting observed and theoretical choices – women's choices about prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 557-577, May.
    2. Sylvie M. C. van Osch & Anne M. Stiggelbout, 2008. "The construction of standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(1), pages 31-40, January.
    3. Rachel Baker & Angela Robinson, 2004. "Responses to standard gambles: are preferences ‘well constructed’?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 37-48, January.
    4. P. Stalmeier & A. Verheijen, 2013. "Maximal endurable time states and the standard gamble: more preference reversals," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(6), pages 971-977, December.
    5. Carmen Herrero Blanco & Juan D. Moreno Ternero, 2002. "Economic Evaluation Of Newborn Hearing Screening Procedures," Working Papers. Serie AD 2002-06, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    6. Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    7. Monali S Malvankar-Mehta & Yufeng Nancy Chen & Sangita Patel & Angela Pui-Kei Leung & Man Mohan Merchea & William G Hodge, 2015. "Immediate versus Delayed Sequential Bilateral Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    8. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Maria Abellan-Perpiñan & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades & Ildefonso Mendez-Martinez, 2007. "Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement Under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 469-482, March.
    9. Stefan A. Lipman & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Arthur E. Attema, 2020. "What is it going to be, TTO or SG? A direct test of the validity of health state valuation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(11), pages 1475-1481, November.
    10. Thomas Hammerschmidt & Hans-Peter Zeitler & Markus Gulich & Reiner Leidl, 2004. "A Comparison of Different Strategies to Collect Standard Gamble Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(5), pages 493-503, October.
    11. Tsuchiya, Aki & Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer, 2006. "Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 334-346, March.
    12. Arthur E. Attema & Marieke Krol & Job Exel & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2018. "New findings from the time trade-off for income approach to elicit willingness to pay for a quality adjusted life year," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(2), pages 277-291, March.
    13. Antoni Bosch-Domènech & Joaquim Silvestre, 2013. "Measuring risk aversion with lists: a new bias," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(4), pages 465-496, October.
    14. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2013. "In search of a preferred preference elicitation method: A test of the internal consistency of choice and matching tasks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 126-140.
    15. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2009. "The correction of TTO-scores for utility curvature using a risk-free utility elicitation method," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 234-243, January.
    16. Anne Spencer, 2003. "The TTO method and procedural invariance," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 655-668, August.
    17. Paul F M Krabbe, 2013. "A Generalized Measurement Model to Quantify Health: The Multi-Attribute Preference Response Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-12, November.
    18. Alexander M M Arons & Paul F M Krabbe, 2014. "Quantification of Health by Scaling Similarity Judgments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-10, February.
    19. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    20. Ariel Beresniak & Antonieta Medina-Lara & Jean Auray & Alain Wever & Jean-Claude Praet & Rosanna Tarricone & Aleksandra Torbica & Danielle Dupont & Michel Lamure & Gerard Duru, 2015. "Validation of the Underlying Assumptions of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Years Outcome: Results from the ECHOUTCOME European Project," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 61-69, January.

    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:plo:pone00:0151905. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.