IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v21y2001i2p122-132.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferences for Fractures and Other Glucocorticoid-Associated Adverse Effects among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients

Author

Listed:
  • Linda A. Merlino

    (Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City)

  • Indranil Bagchi

    (Smith Kline Beecham & Co., Collegeville, Pennsylvania)

  • Thomas N. Taylor

    (Parke-Davis & Co., Ann Arbor, Michigan)

  • Paul Utrie

    (Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City)

  • Elizabeth Chrischilles

    (Department of Epidemiology, University of Iowa, Iowa City)

  • Walton Sumner II

    (Division of General Medical Sciences, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri)

  • Amy Mudano

    (Department of Medicine and Center for Education and Research on Therapeutics (CERTs) of Musculoskeletal Disorders, University of Alabama at Birmingham)

  • Kenneth G. Saag

    (Department of Medicine and Center for Education and Research on Therapeutics (CERTs) of Musculoskeletal Disorders, University of Alabama at Birmingham)

Abstract

Objective . The objective of this study was to determine rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients’ preferences for validated health state scenarios depicting glucocorticoid adverse events, predictors of these preferences, and psychometric properties of different preference techniques in this population. Methods . Preferences were elicited by rating scale and time trade-off methods. Time trade-offs included trading current health for either time spent alive in an adverse health state for chronic conditions (time trade-off) or time spent in a sleeplike state for acute conditions (sleep trade-off). Results . A total of 107 subjects with long-standing RA participated in the preference interviews. Mean preference values (rating scale/trade-off) were lowest for serious fracture adverse events, including hip fracture requiring a nursing home stay (0.55 ± 0.22/0.76 ± 0.36) and vertebral fracture with chronic pain (0.59 ± 0.23/0.67 ± 0.35), and highest for cataracts (0.84 ± 0.17/0.96 ± 0.09) and wrist fracture (0.82 ± 0.18/0.81 ± 0.29). Rating scales had a stronger correlation (r= 0.88) with physician ranking of scenarios than trade-off methods (r = 0.31). All methods were feasible and demonstrated good reliability, while rating scale method showed better construct validity than trade-off techniques. Conclusion . Relative to their current health, RA patients assigned low preference values to many glucocorticoid adverse events, particularly those associated with chronic fracture outcomes. Results varied with the preference measure used, indicating that methodological attributes of preference determinations must be considered in clinical decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Linda A. Merlino & Indranil Bagchi & Thomas N. Taylor & Paul Utrie & Elizabeth Chrischilles & Walton Sumner II & Amy Mudano & Kenneth G. Saag, 2001. "Preferences for Fractures and Other Glucocorticoid-Associated Adverse Effects among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(2), pages 122-132, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:21:y:2001:i:2:p:122-132
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0102100205
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X0102100205
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X0102100205?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. Krabbe, Paul F. M. & Essink-Bot, Marie-Louise & Bonsel, Gouke J., 1997. "The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(11), pages 1641-1652, December.
    2. 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. Oscar Andrés Espinosa Acuna, 2020. "Clasificación de estados de salud y metodologías de valoración de preferencias para el cálculo de AVAC: una revisión de literatura," Ensayos de Economía 19137, Universidad Nacional de Colombia Sede Medellín.

    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. Levy, Moshe & Nir, Adi Rizansky, 2012. "The utility of health and wealth," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 379-392.
    2. Paul F. M. Krabbe & Elly A. Stolk & Nancy J. Devlin & Feng Xie & Elise H. Quik & A. Simon Pickard, 2017. "Head-to-head comparison of health-state values derived by a probabilistic choice model and scores on a visual analogue scale," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(8), pages 967-977, November.
    3. Jason N. Doctor & Han Bleichrodt & H. Jill Lin, 2010. "Health Utility Bias: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analytic Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(1), pages 58-67, January.
    4. Milton C. Weinstein, 1981. "Economic Assessments of Medical Practices and Technologies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 1(4), pages 309-330, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Kevin Haninger & James K. Hammitt, 2011. "Diminishing Willingness to Pay per Quality‐Adjusted Life Year: Valuing Acute Foodborne Illness," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(9), pages 1363-1380, September.
    7. 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.
    8. George W. Torrance & David Feeny & William Furlong, 2001. "Visual Analog Scales," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(4), pages 329-334, August.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
    16. D. Stratmann‐Schoene & T. Kuehn & R. Kreienberg & R. Leidl, 2006. "A preference‐based index for the SF‐12," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 553-564, June.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:21:y:2001:i:2:p:122-132. 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.