IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v24y2004i5p493-503.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of Different Strategies to Collect Standard Gamble Utilities

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Hammerschmidt

    (Department of Health Economics, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany; Georg-Hegenauer-Ring 9, D-83026 Rosenheim, Germany;thomas.hammerschmidt@gsk.com.)

  • Hans-Peter Zeitler
  • Markus Gulich

    (Department of General Medicine, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.)

  • Reiner Leidl

    (Department of Health Economics; GSF National Research Center for Environment and Health, Neuherberg, Germany.)

Abstract

Objective. The authors performed a methodological comparison of the usual standard gamble with methods that could also be used in mailed questionnaires. Methods . Ninety-two diabetic patients valued diabetes-related health states twice. In face-to-face interviews, the authors used an iterative standard gamble (ISG) in which the probabilities were varied in a ping-pong manner and a self-completion method (SC) with top-down titration as search procedure (SC-TD) in 2 independent subsamples of 46 patients. Three months later, all patients received a mailed questionnaire in which the authors used the self-completion method with bottom-up (SCBU) and SC-TD as search procedures . Results . ISG and SCTD showed feasibility and consistency in the interviews. The ISG resulted in significantly higher utilities than the SC-TD . Two thirds of the mailed questionnaires provided useful results indicating some problems of feasibility. Utilities measured by SC-BU and SC-TD did not differ significantly showing procedural invariance. Further, patients indicated ambivalence when given the choice not to definitely state their preferences . Conclusions .The results show that different strategies to collect standard gamble utilities can yield different results. Compared with the usually applied ISG, the SC method is feasible in interviews and provides a consistent alternative that is less costly when used in mailed questionnaires, although its practicability has to be improved in this later setting.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Hammerschmidt & Hans-Peter Zeitler & Markus Gulich & Reiner Leidl, 2004. "A Comparison of Different Strategies to Collect Standard Gamble Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(5), pages 493-503, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:24:y:2004:i:5:p:493-503
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04269239
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X04269239
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X04269239?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., 1986. "Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal : A review," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, March.
    2. Daniel Polsky & Richard J. Willke & Karen Scott & Kevin A. Schulman & Henry A. Glick, 2001. "A comparison of scoring weights for the EuroQol© derived from patients and the general public," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(1), pages 27-37, January.
    3. Ready Richard C. & Whitehead John C. & Blomquist Glenn C., 1995. "Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are Ambivalent," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 181-196, September.
    4. Groot, Wim, 2000. "Adaptation and scale of reference bias in self-assessments of quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 403-420, May.
    5. Claire Gudex, 1994. "Standard Gamble user manual: props and self-completion methods," Working Papers 021cheop, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    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 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.
    2. Kristina Burström & Magnus Johannesson & Finn Diderichsen, 2005. "Increasing socio‐economic inequalities in life expectancy and QALYs in Sweden 1980–1997," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(8), pages 831-850, August.
    3. Dolan, P. & Gudex, C. & Kind, P. & Williams, A., 1996. "Valuing health states: A comparison of methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 209-231, April.
    4. Ada Ferrer‐i‐Carbonell & Bernard M.S. van Praag, 2002. "The subjective costs of health losses due to chronic diseases. An alternative model for monetary appraisal," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(8), pages 709-722, December.
    5. van Praag, Bernard M. S. & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, Ada, 2001. "Age-Differentiated QALY Losses," IZA Discussion Papers 314, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Hendrik Jürges, 2007. "True health vs response styles: exploring cross‐country differences in self‐reported health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(2), pages 163-178, February.
    7. Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell & Bernard M.S. van Praag, 2002. "The Subjective Costs of Health Losses due to Chronic Diseases," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 02-023/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    8. Spencer, Anne & Rivero-Arias, Oliver & Wong, Ruth & Tsuchiya, Aki & Bleichrodt, Han & Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor & Norman, Richard & Lloyd, Andrew & Clarke, Philip, 2022. "The QALY at 50: One story many voices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    9. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Costa-Font, Joan, 2009. "Heterogeneous 'adaptation' and 'income effects' across self-reported health distribution?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 574-580, August.
    10. Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Jönsson & Göran Karlsson, 1996. "Outcome measurement in economic evaluation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(4), pages 279-296, July.
    11. Christine McDonough & Anna Tosteson, 2007. "Measuring Preferences for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 93-106, February.
    12. Richard Carson & Jordan Louviere, 2011. "A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 539-559, August.
    13. Patricia Cubí Mollá, 2010. "Scaling methods for categorical self-assessed health measures," Working Papers. Serie AD 2010-01, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    14. Burstrom, Kristina & Johannesson, Magnus & Diderichsen, Finn, 2006. "A comparison of individual and social time trade-off values for health states in the general population," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 359-370, May.
    15. Ferrer-i-Carbonell, Ada & van Praag, Bernard M. S., 2001. "The Subjective Costs of Health Losses due to Chronic Diseases: An Alternative Model Appraisal," IZA Discussion Papers 313, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Kristina Burström & Magnus Johannesson & Finn Diderichsen, 2003. "The value of the change in health in Sweden 1980/81 to 1996/97," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 637-654, August.
    17. Hank, Karsten & Jürges, Hendrik & Schupp, Jürgen & Wagner, Gert G., 2006. "Die Messung der Greifkraft als objektives Gesundheitsmaß in sozialwissenschaftlichen Bevölkerungsumfragen: Erhebungsmethodische und inhaltliche Befunde auf der Basis von SHARE und SOEP," Discussion Papers 2006/6, Technische Universität Berlin, School of Economics and Management.
    18. Mozhaeva, Irina, 2022. "Inequalities in utilization of institutional care among older people in Estonia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(7), pages 704-714.
    19. Ruth Hancock & Marcello Morciano & Stephen Pudney & Francesca Zantomio, 2015. "Do household surveys give a coherent view of disability benefit targeting?: a multisurvey latent variable analysis for the older population in Great Britain," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 178(4), pages 815-836, October.
    20. Johnston, David W. & Lordan, Grace, 2012. "Discrimination makes me sick! An examination of the discrimination–health relationship," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 99-111.

    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:24:y:2004:i:5:p:493-503. 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.