IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v14y1994i1p82-90.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Utility Assessment in Cancer Patients

Author

Listed:
  • A.M. Stiggelbout
  • G.M. Kiebert
  • J. Kievit
  • J.W.H. Leer
  • G. Stoter
  • J.C.J.M. De Haes

Abstract

The standard gamble (SG) and the time tradeoff (TTO), two frequently used methods of utility assessment, have often been found to lead to different utilities for the same health state. The authors investigated whether adjustment of TTO scores for the utility of life years (risk attitude) eliminated this difference. In addition, the association between risk attitude and sociodemographic and medical variables was studied. In 30 disease-free testicular cancer patients, SG and TTO were used to assess the utilities of four health profiles relevant to testicular cancer. Utility of life years was estimated from certainty equivalents (CEs). SG scores were significantly higher than unadjusted TTO scores for all profiles. As the majority of patients (85%) were risk-averse, CE-adjusted TTO scores were higher than unadjusted scores, and were not significantly different from those obtained from the SG for three of the four profiles. However, adjusted scores were still slightly but consistently lower than SG scores. Possible explanations for this discrepancy are discussed. An association was found between risk aversion and medical treatment: patients who had received chemotherapy for their cancers were more risk-averse than were patients who had been in a surveillance protocol only. As risk aversion can have an impact on treatment decisions, it is important to assess the risk posture of the patient to whom the decision pertains. Key words: utility assessment; QALY; risk aversion; oncology; treatment preferences. (Med Decis Making 1994;14:82-90)

Suggested Citation

  • A.M. Stiggelbout & G.M. Kiebert & J. Kievit & J.W.H. Leer & G. Stoter & J.C.J.M. De Haes, 1994. "Utility Assessment in Cancer Patients," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(1), pages 82-90, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:14:y:1994:i:1:p:82-90
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9401400110
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9401400110
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9401400110?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. Torrance, George W., 1976. "Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 129-136.
    2. Nord, Erik, 1992. "Methods for quality adjustment of life years," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 559-569, March.
    3. Gordon B. Hazen & Wallace J. Hopp & James M. Pellissier, 1991. "Continuous-risk Utility Assessment in Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 11(4), pages 294-304, December.
    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. 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.
    2. Suzanne Robinson, 2011. "Test–retest reliability of health state valuation techniques: the time trade off and person trade off," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(11), pages 1379-1391, November.
    3. June F. O'Leary & Diane L. Fairclough & M. Kay Jankowski & Jane C. Weeks, 1995. "Comparison of Time-tradeoff Utilities and Rating Scale Values of Cancer Patients and Their Relatives," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 15(2), pages 132-137, June.
    4. Alessandro Corso & Silvia Mangiacavalli & Federica Cocito & Cristiana Pascutto & Virginia Valeria Ferretti & Alessandra Pompa & Roberta Ciampichini & Lara Pochintesta & Lorenzo G Mantovani, 2013. "Long Term Evaluation of the Impact of Autologous Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-6, September.
    5. Erik Nord, 2015. "Cost-Value Analysis of Health Interventions: Introduction and Update on Methods and Preference Data," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 89-95, February.
    6. Michaël Schwarzinger & Jean‐Louis Lanoë & Erik Nord & Isabelle Durand‐Zaleski, 2004. "Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade‐off responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 171-181, February.
    7. Murray, Christopher J. L. & Acharya, Arnab K., 1997. "Understanding DALYs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 703-730, December.
    8. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    9. Damschroder, Laura J. & Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. & Ubel, Peter A., 2005. "The impact of considering adaptation in health state valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 267-277, July.
    10. Milton C. Weinstein, 1981. "Economic Assessments of Medical Practices and Technologies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 1(4), pages 309-330, December.
    11. Benjamin Matthew Craig & Kim Rand & John D. Hartman, 2022. "Preference Paths and Their Kaizen Tasks for Small Samples," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(2), pages 187-196, March.
    12. Paul Dolan & Claire Gudex, 1995. "Time preference, duration and health state valuations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 4(4), pages 289-299, July.
    13. George W. Torrance & David Feeny & William Furlong, 2001. "Visual Analog Scales," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(4), pages 329-334, August.
    14. Peter A. Ubel & George Loewenstein & Dennis Scanlon & Mark Kamlet, 1996. "Individual Utilities Are Inconsistent with Rationing Choices," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(2), pages 108-116, June.
    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. Marisa Santos & Monica A. C. T. Cintra & Andrea L. Monteiro & Braulio Santos & Fernando Gusmão-filho & Mônica Viegas Andrade & Kenya Noronha & Luciane N. Cruz & Suzi Camey & Bernardo Tura & Paul Kin, 2016. "Brazilian Valuation of EQ-5D-3L Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 253-263, February.
    17. Peter Hertzman, 2005. "The cost effectiveness of orlistat in a 1-year weight-management programme for treating overweight and obese patients in Sweden," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 23(10), pages 1007-1020, October.
    18. Lena Lundberg & Magnus Johannesson & Dag G.L. Isacson & Lars Borgquist, 1999. "The Relationship between Health-state Utilities and the SF-12 in a General Population," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(2), pages 128-140, April.
    19. Zeynep Erkin & Matthew D. Bailey & Lisa M. Maillart & Andrew J. Schaefer & Mark S. Roberts, 2010. "Eliciting Patients' Revealed Preferences: An Inverse Markov Decision Process Approach," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 358-365, December.
    20. Rebecca Shaw & Paul Dolan & Aki Tsuchiya & Alan Williams & Peter Smith & Roger Burrows, 2001. "Development of a questionnaire to elicit public preferences regarding health inequalities," Working Papers 040cheop, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.

    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:sae:medema:v:14:y:1994:i:1:p:82-90. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.