IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v19y1999i2p149-156.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conventional and Chained Standard Gambles in the Assessment of Coronary Heart Disease Prevention and Treatment

Author

Listed:
  • Lyne Lalonde
  • Ann E. Clarke
  • Lawrence Joseph
  • Steven A. Grover

Abstract

The authors compared the abilities of descriptive and valuational health-related quality- of-life measures to discriminate healthy participants (n = 39) from those on diets for dyslipidemia (n = 35) and angina patients (n = 30). On the rating scale, the time tradeoff, and the General Health Perception subscale of the SF-36 Health Survey, the participants with dyslipidemia or angina reported lower mean scores than the healthy participants. No differences were detected between these groups on conventional or chained standard gamble (SG) scales. The distribution of the conventional and the chained SG scores was very skewed, with the vast majority of scores being equal or very close to the maximum score. It is concluded that in this study the discriminant ability of the chained SG was comparable to that of the conventional SG and inferior to descriptive and non-risky valuational scaling techniques. This may be explained by the distortion of probabilities, by a misunderstanding of the SG chained assessment, and by a strong certainty effect. Key words: dyslipidemia; coronary heart disease pre vention; angina; health-related quality of life; health status; SF-36 Health Survey; va lidity. (Med Decis Making 1999;19:149-156)

Suggested Citation

  • Lyne Lalonde & Ann E. Clarke & Lawrence Joseph & Steven A. Grover, 1999. "Conventional and Chained Standard Gambles in the Assessment of Coronary Heart Disease Prevention and Treatment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(2), pages 149-156, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:19:y:1999:i:2:p:149-156
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900205
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9901900205
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9901900205?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. D Feeny & G Torrance, 1989. "Incorporating Utility-based Quality-of-life Assessment Measures in Clinical Trials: Two Examples," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 12, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    2. Michael F. Drummond & Joseph Heyse & John Cook & Alistair McGuire, 1993. "Selection of End Points in Economic Evaluations of Coronary-heart-disease Interventions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 13(3), pages 184-190, August.
    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. Benjamin Littenberg & Steven Partilo & Anita Licata & Michael W. Kattan, 2003. "Paper Standard Gamble: The Reliability of a Paper Questionnaire to Assess Utility," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 23(6), pages 480-488, November.
    2. John Brazier & Jennifer Roberts & Aki Tsuchiya & Jan Busschbach, 2004. "A comparison of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D across seven patient groups," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 873-884, September.
    3. McNamee, Paul, 2007. "What difference does it make? The calculation of QALY gains from health profiles using patient and general population values," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(2-3), pages 321-331, December.

    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. Shackley, Phil & Cairns, John, 1996. "Evaluating the benefits of antenatal screening: an alternative approach," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 103-115, May.
    2. Cam Donaldson & Stephen Birch & Amiram Gafni, 2002. "The distribution problem in economic evaluation: income and the valuation of costs and consequences of health care programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 55-70, January.
    3. Claude Le Pen, 1997. "Théorie de l'utilité et mesure des états de santé, le débat QALYs-HYEs," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 129(3), pages 37-54.
    4. Johanna L. Bosch & James K. Hammitt & Milton C. Weinstein & Maria G.M. Hunink, 1998. "Estimating General-population Utilities Using One Binary-gamble Question per Respondent," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(4), pages 381-390, October.
    5. Guillem López-Casasnovas & Berta Rivera, 2002. "Las políticas de equidad en salud y las relaciones entre renta y salud," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 161(2), pages 99-126, June.
    6. Floyd J. Fowler JR. & Paul D. Cleary & Michael P. Massagli & Joel Weissman & Arnold Epstein, 1995. "The Role of Reluctance to Give Up life in the Measurement of the Values of Health states," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 15(3), pages 195-200, August.
    7. Johanna L. Bosch & Maria G.M. Hunink, 1996. "The Relationship between Descriptive and Valuational Quality-of-life Measures in Patients with Intermittent Claudication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(3), pages 217-225, August.
    8. 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.
    9. John Cairns & Phil Shackley, 1993. "Sometimes sensitive, seldom specific: A review of the economics of screening," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 2(1), pages 43-53, April.

    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:19:y:1999:i:2:p:149-156. 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.