IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v26y2006i4p347-359.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Process Utility in Breast Biopsy

Author

Listed:
  • J. Shannon Swan

    (Indiana University Department of Radiology Education and Research Institute, Indianapolis; Massachusetts General Hospital Institute for Technology Assessment, Harvard Medical School. 101 Merrimac St. 10th Floor, Boston, MA, 02114; shannon@mgh-ita.org)

  • William F. Lawrence

    (Agency for Health Research and Quality, Center for Outcomes and Effectiveness, Rockville, MD)

  • Jessica Roy

    (Indiana University Cancer Center, Indiana University Department of Radiology Education and Research Institute, Indianapolis)

Abstract

Purpose . To determine whether the waiting trade-off (WTO) is feasible for differentiating short-term biopsy preferences in an acute situation where anxiety is the symptomatic disease state. Methods . 75 women with past experience of either breast core-needle biopsy (CNB), more invasive excisional surgical biopsy (EXB), or both, had telephone WTO assessments. Patients' baseline and test-related anxiety were valued by time trade-off (TTO) used to scale the WTO. Rating scales (RS) were obtained for convergent validity assessment with WTO and TTO. Results . Data were obtained in 38 women who had both CNB and EXB (“paired†) and 20 who had CNB only and 16 who had EXB only (“unpaired†). Patients rated only the procedure(s) they experienced. Median paired and mean unpaired WTO scores indicated patients were willing to wait significantly longer to avoid EXB ( P = 0.0003, P = 0.0002, respectively). The waiting time difference between EXB and CNB was 2.1 weeks greater in unpaired data than paired data. RS scores comparing the procedures were significantly different only for paired data ( P

Suggested Citation

  • J. Shannon Swan & William F. Lawrence & Jessica Roy, 2006. "Process Utility in Breast Biopsy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 347-359, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:26:y:2006:i:4:p:347-359
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06290490
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X06290490
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X06290490?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. Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 1997. "Does "process utility" exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 699-707, March.
    2. Johanna Cook & Jeff Richardson & Andrew Street, 1994. "A cost utility analysis of treatment options for gallstone disease: Methodological issues and results," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(3), pages 157-168, May.
    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. Tracy Lieu & Ismael Ortega-Sanchez & G. Ray & Donna Rusinak & W. Yih & Peter Choo & Irene Shui & Ken Kleinman & Rafael Harpaz & Lisa Prosser, 2008. "Community and Patient Values for Preventing Herpes Zoster," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 235-249, March.

    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. Richard Abreu Lourenco & Marion Haas & Jane Hall & Rosalie Viney, 2017. "Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 347-362, March.
    2. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.
    3. Stuart Wright & Cheryl Jones & Katherine Payne & Nimarta Dharni & Fiona Ulph, 2015. "The Role of Information Provision in Economic Evaluations of Newborn Bloodspot Screening: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(6), pages 615-626, December.
    4. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
    5. Brent Opmeer & Corianne Borgie & Ben Mol & Patrick Bossuyt, 2010. "Assessing Preferences Regarding Healthcare Interventions that Involve Non-Health Outcomes," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(1), pages 1-10, March.
    6. 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.
    7. Su, Tin Tin & Sanon, Mamadou & Flessa, Steffen, 2007. "Assessment of indirect cost-of-illness in a subsistence farming society by using different valuation methods," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(2-3), pages 353-362, October.
    8. Marc Le Menestrel, 2001. "A Process Approach to the Utility for Gambling," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 249-262, May.
    9. Ryan, Mandy & Netten, Ann & Skatun, Diane & Smith, Paul, 2006. "Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome--An application to social care for older people," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 927-944, September.
    10. Emily Lancsar & Cam Donaldson, 2005. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: Distinguishing between the method and its application," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(4), pages 314-316, December.
    11. Wailoo, Allan & Anand, Paul, 2005. "The nature of procedural preferences for health-care rationing decisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 223-236, January.
    12. Bower, Peter & King, Michael & Nazareth, Irwin & Lampe, Fiona & Sibbald, Bonnie, 2005. "Patient preferences in randomised controlled trials: Conceptual framework and implications for research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 685-695, August.
    13. Goebbels, Adrienne F.G. & Lakerveld, Jeroen & Ament, André J.H.A. & Bot, Sandra D.M. & Severens, Johan L., 2012. "Exploring non-health outcomes of health promotion: The perspective of participants in a lifestyle behaviour change intervention," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 177-186.
    14. Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Exel, N. Job A. van & Berg, Bernard van den & Bos, Geertruidis A.M. van den & Koopmanschap, Marc A., 2005. "Process utility from providing informal care: the benefit of caring," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 85-99, September.
    15. Stéphane Luchini & Christel Protière & Jean‐Paul Moatti, 2003. "Eliciting several willingness to pay in a single contingent valuation survey: application to health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 51-64, January.
    16. Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Kjær, Trine, 2011. "The influence of information and private versus public provision on preferences for screening for prostate cancer: A willingness-to-pay study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 277-289, August.
    17. Lidia Engel & Stirling Bryan & David G. T. Whitehurst, 2021. "Conceptualising ‘Benefits Beyond Health’ in the Context of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(12), pages 1383-1395, December.
    18. Peep F. M. Stalmeier, 2002. "Discrepancies between Chained and Classic Utilities Induced by Anchoring with Occasional Adjustments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(1), pages 53-64, February.
    19. Dirksen, Carmen D. & Ament, AndreJ. H. & Go, Peter M. N., 1996. "Diffusion of six surgical endoscopic procedures in the Netherlands. Stimulating and restraining factors," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 91-104, August.
    20. Stephen Birch & Joy Melnikow & Miriam Kuppermann, 2003. "Conservative versus aggressive follow up of mildly abnormal Pap smears: Testing for process utility," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(10), pages 879-884, October.

    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:26:y:2006:i:4:p:347-359. 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.