IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v18y1998i4p391-399.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patients' Utilities for Cancer Treatments

Author

Listed:
  • Sylvia J.T. Jansen
  • Anne M. Stiggelbout
  • Peter P. Wakker
  • Thea P.M. Vliet Vlieland
  • Jan-Willem H. Leer
  • Marianne A. Nooy
  • Job Kievit

Abstract

Objective. Temporary health states cannot be measured in the traditional way by means of techniques such as the time tradeoff (TTO) and the standard gamble (SG), where health states are chronic and are followed by death. Chained methods have been developed to solve this problem. This study assesses the feasibility of a chained TTO and a chained SG, and the consistency and concordance between the two meth ods. Patients and methods. Seventy female early-stage breast cancer patients were interviewed. In using both chained methods, the temporary health state to be evaluated was weighed indirectly with the aid of a temporary anchor health state. The patients were asked to evaluate their actual health states, a hypothetical radiotherapy scenario, and a hypothetical chemotherapy scenario. Results. Sixty-eight patients completed the interview. The use of the anchor health state yielded some problems. A significant difference between the means of the TTO and the SG was found for the anchor health state only. For the other health states, the results were remarkably close, because the design avoided some of the bias effects in traditional measurements. Conclusion. The feasibility and the consistency of the chained procedure were satisfactory for both methods. The problems regarding the anchor health state can be solved by adapting the methods and by the use of a carefully chosen anchor health state. The chained method avoids biases present in the conventional method, and thereby the TTO and the SG may be reconciled. Moreover, there are several psychological advantages to the method, which makes it useful for diseases with uncertain prognoses. Key words: utility assessment; time tradeoff; standard gamble; breast cancer; chemotherapy; ra diotherapy. (Med Decis Making 1998;18:391-399)

Suggested Citation

  • Sylvia J.T. Jansen & Anne M. Stiggelbout & Peter P. Wakker & Thea P.M. Vliet Vlieland & Jan-Willem H. Leer & Marianne A. Nooy & Job Kievit, 1998. "Patients' Utilities for Cancer Treatments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(4), pages 391-399, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:18:y:1998:i:4:p:391-399
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9801800406
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9801800406
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9801800406?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. K Bennett & G Torrance & R Guscott & L Moran, 1996. "McSAD Mental Health State Utilities: Results of a Survey in Major, Unipolar Depression," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 1996-20, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    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. 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.
    2. Anne Spencer, 2001. "The Time Trade-Off Method: An Exploratory Study," Working Papers 437, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    3. Anne Spencer, 2003. "The TTO method and procedural invariance," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 655-668, August.
    4. 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.
    5. Anne Spencer, 2001. "The Implications of Linking Questions within the SG and TTO Methods," Working Papers 438, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    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. Anne Spencer, 2001. "The Implications of Linking Questions within the SG and TTO Methods," Working Papers 438, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    8. Mohan V. Bala & Gary A. Zarkin, 2000. "Are QALYs an appropriate measure for valuing morbidity in acute diseases?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 177-180, March.
    9. Paul McNamee & Sharon Glendinning & Jonathan Shenfine & Nick Steen & S. Griffin & John Bond, 2004. "Chained time trade-off and standard gamble methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 5(1), pages 81-86, February.
    10. Anne Spencer, 2001. "The Time Trade-Off Method: An Exploratory Study," Working Papers 437, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    11. 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.

    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.

      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:18:y:1998:i:4:p:391-399. 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.