IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v24y2004i5p504-510.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preference Assessment Method Affects Decision-Analytic Recommendations: A Prostate Cancer Treatment Example

Author

Listed:
  • Elena B. Elkin

    (Departments of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York)

  • Mark E. Cowen
  • Daniel Cahill

    (St. Joseph Mercy Hospital, Ann Arbor, Michigan)

  • Mary Steffel

    (Columbia University, New York)

  • Michael W. Kattan

    (Departments of Biostatistics and Epidemiology and Urology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York; Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Wb4, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH 44195; phone: 216-444-0584; fax: 630-604-3605kattanm@ccf.org)

Abstract

Purpose. To evaluate the effect of preference assessment method on treatment recommended by an individualized decision-analytic model for early prostate cancer. Methods. Health state preferences were elicited by time tradeoff, rating scale, and a power transformation of the rating scale from 63 men ages 55 to 75. The authors used these values in a Markov model to determine whether radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting yielded the greater quality-adjusted life expectancy. Results. Time tradeoff and transformed rating scale recommendations differed widely. Time tradeoff and transformed rating scale utilities differed in their treatment recommendation for 21% to 52% of men, and the mean difference in quality-adjusted life years varied from less than 0.5 to greater than 1.0. Conclusions. Treatment recommendations from the prostate cancer decision model were sensitive to the method of preference assessment. If decision analysis is used to counsel individual patients, careful considerationmust be given to the method of preference elicitation.

Suggested Citation

  • Elena B. Elkin & Mark E. Cowen & Daniel Cahill & Mary Steffel & Michael W. Kattan, 2004. "Preference Assessment Method Affects Decision-Analytic Recommendations: A Prostate Cancer Treatment Example," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(5), pages 504-510, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:24:y:2004:i:5:p:504-510
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04268954
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X04268954
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X04268954?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. David Feeny & Marie Townsend & William Furlong & Darrell Tomkins & Gail Robinson & George Torrance & Patrick Mohide & Qinan Wang, 2000. "Assessing Health-Related Quality-of-Life in Prenatal Diagnosis Comparing Chorionic Villi Sampling and Amniocentesis: A Technical Report," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 2000-04, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    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)

    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:24:y:2004:i:5:p:504-510. 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.