IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v14y1994i4p307-314.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of the Rating Scale and the Standard Gamble in Measuring Patient Preferences for Outcomes of Gallstone Disease

Author

Listed:
  • Eric B. Bass
  • Earl P. Steinberg
  • Henry A. Pitt
  • Robert I. Griffiths
  • Keith D. Lillemoe
  • George P. Saba
  • Christina Johns

Abstract

To estimate patient preferences for gallstone-related treatments and outcomes, and assess how preferences vary by patient characteristics and scaling technique, the authors randomly assigned 40 patients without gallstones to interviews based on a rating scale (n = 22) and a standard gamble (n = 18). The patients assigned preference values (possible values 0 to 1) to open cholecystectomy (mean 0.45 by rating scale, 0.78 by standard gamble), laparoscopic cholecystectomy (0.71, 0.91), extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (0.77, 0.89), acute cholecystitis (0.36, 0.77), lifetime biliary colic (0.41, 0.71), postcholecystectomy syn drome (0.43, 0.79), asymptomatic stone necessitating treatment with bile acids (0.76, 0.96), and surgical scar (0.79, 0.998). Preferences varied little by age, gender, or race. Standard gamble values were highly correlated with, but significantly greater than, rating scale values. The authors conclude that patients' preferences for gallstone-related conditions generally are significantly less than one, and differ markedly by the scaling technique used to derive them. These results should be considered when patient preferences are incorporated into analyses of gallstone treatments. Key words: patient preference values; rating scale; stan dard gamble; gallstones; cholecystectomy; lithotripsy. (Med Decis Making 1994;14:307- 314)

Suggested Citation

  • Eric B. Bass & Earl P. Steinberg & Henry A. Pitt & Robert I. Griffiths & Keith D. Lillemoe & George P. Saba & Christina Johns, 1994. "Comparison of the Rating Scale and the Standard Gamble in Measuring Patient Preferences for Outcomes of Gallstone Disease," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(4), pages 307-314, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:14:y:1994:i:4:p:307-314
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9401400401
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9401400401
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9401400401?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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619, June.
    2. Sloan, Frank A. & Kip Viscusi, W. & Chesson, Harrell W. & Conover, Christopher J. & Whetten-Goldstein, Kathryn, 1998. "Alternative approaches to valuing intangible health losses: the evidence for multiple sclerosis1," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 475-497, August.
    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. 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.
    5. Levy, Moshe & Nir, Adi Rizansky, 2012. "The utility of health and wealth," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 379-392.
    6. Joshua A. Salomon & Christopher J.L. Murray, 2004. "A multi‐method approach to measuring health‐state valuations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(3), pages 281-290, March.
    7. Ubel, Peter A. & Loewenstein, George & Scanlon, Dennis & Kamlet, Mark, 1998. "Value measurement in cost-utility analysis: explaining the discrepancy between rating scale and person trade-off elicitations," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 33-44, January.
    8. G. Ardine De Wit & Jan J.V. Busschbach & Frank Th. De Charro, 2000. "Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 109-126, March.
    9. Neuman, Tzahi & Neuman, Einat & Neuman, Shoshana, 2010. "Explorations of the effect of experience on preferences for a health-care service," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 407-419, June.

    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. Milton C. Weinstein, 1981. "Economic Assessments of Medical Practices and Technologies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 1(4), pages 309-330, December.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. George W. Torrance & David Feeny & William Furlong, 2001. "Visual Analog Scales," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(4), pages 329-334, August.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Diego Ossa & Andrew Briggs & Emma McIntosh & Warren Cowell & Tim Littlewood & Mark Sculpher, 2007. "Recombinant Erythropoietin for Chemotherapy-Related Anaemia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 223-237, March.
    12. Holger J. Schünemann & Lauren Griffith & David Stubbing & Roger Goldstein & Gordon H. Guyatt, 2003. "A Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Measurement Properties of 2 Direct Preference Instruments Administered with and without Hypothetical Marker States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 23(2), pages 140-149, March.
    13. A. David Paltiel & Kenneth A. Freedberg, 1998. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing Cytomegalovirus Disease in AIDS Patients," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 34-51, June.
    14. Denise Bijlenga & Gouke J. Bonsel & Erwin Birnie, 2011. "Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(11), pages 1392-1406, November.
    15. Hilary A. Llewellyn-Thomas & Elaine C. Thiel & M. June McGreal, 1992. "Cancer Patients' Evaluations of Their Current Health State," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 12(2), pages 115-122, June.
    16. Donald A. Redelmeier & Daniel N. Heller, 1993. "Time Preference in Medical Decision Making and Cost - Effectiveness Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 13(3), pages 212-217, August.
    17. Hilary A. Llewellyn-Thomas & J. Michael Paterson & Judy A. Carter & Antoni Basinski & Martin G. Myers & Gordon D. Hardacre & Earl V. Dunn & Ralph B. D’Agostino & Philip A. Wolf & C. David Naylor, 2002. "Primary Prevention Drug Therapy: Can It Meet Patients’ Requirements for Reduced Risk?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(4), pages 326-339, August.
    18. Heather J. Sutherland & Virginia Dunn & Norman F. Boyd, 1983. "Measurement of Values for States of Health with Linear Analog Scales," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 3(4), pages 477-487, December.
    19. Bruno Casal & Eva Rodríguez-Míguez & Berta Rivera, 2020. "Measuring intangible cost-of-morbidity due to substance dependence: implications of using alternative preference-based instruments," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 1039-1048, September.
    20. Craig., Benjamin M. & Busschbach, Jan J.V., 2011. "Revisiting United States valuation of EQ-5D states," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 1057-1063.

    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:4:p:307-314. 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.