IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v28y2008i1p102-112.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predicting Utility Ratings for Joint Health States from Single Health States in Prostate Cancer: Empirical Testing of 3 Alternative Theories

Author

Listed:
  • William Dale

    (University of Chicago, Department of Medicine, Section of Geriatrics, wdale@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu.)

  • Anirban Basu

    (Section of General Internal Medicine Chicago, Illinois)

  • Arthur Elstein

    (University of Illinois-Chicago, Department of Medical Education)

  • David Meltzer

    (Section of General Internal Medicine Chicago, Illinois)

Abstract

Background. Cost-effectiveness analyses measure quality of life by associating utilities with specific health states. Utilities are often defined by single health states, such as incontinence or impotence in the case of prostate cancer treatments. Health conditions often occur simultaneously, yielding joint health states (e.g., impotence with incontinence). Given the combinatorial mathematics involved, even a small number of conditions can result in large numbers of potential joint states, complicating utility elicitation for all relevant states. Analytic predictions for joint-state utilities have been based on 3 theoretical models: 1) multiplicative, 2) additive, and 3) minimum models. These models' empirical accuracy for joint-state utility prediction has been minimally examined. The authors compared these 3 models for predicting joint-state utilities from single-state utilities in men at the time of prostate biopsies. Methods. Utilities were collected using time tradeoff in 2 university-based prostate biopsy clinics (N = 147). Single-state utilities were elicited for impotence, incontinence, watchful waiting, and post-prostatectomy. Joint-state utilities were elicited for states combining impotence with 1) incontinence, 2) postprostatectomy, or 3) watchful waiting. Testing 3 prediction models of joint-state utilities for bias and consistency, the predictions were compared against directly elicited joint-state utilities. Results. All 3 models are biased. The minimum model is preferred, being the least biased and most efficient. Conclusions. No current model accurately predicts joint-state utility using the component single-state utilities. When possible, joint-state utilities should be elicited. If not possible, the minimum model is recommended. Research to identify better models is needed.

Suggested Citation

  • William Dale & Anirban Basu & Arthur Elstein & David Meltzer, 2008. "Predicting Utility Ratings for Joint Health States from Single Health States in Prostate Cancer: Empirical Testing of 3 Alternative Theories," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(1), pages 102-112, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:1:p:102-112
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07309639
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07309639
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X07309639?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. Keeney,Ralph L. & Raiffa,Howard, 1993. "Decisions with Multiple Objectives," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521438834, October.
    2. Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680.
    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. Anirban Basu & William Dale & Arthur Elstein & David Meltzer, 2009. "A linear index for predicting joint health‐states utilities from single health‐states utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 403-419, April.
    2. William Raich & Jennifer Baxter & Megan Sheahan & Jeremy Goldhaber-Fiebert & Patrick Sullivan & Janel Hanmer, 2023. "Estimates of Quality-Adjusted Life-Year Loss for Injuries in the United States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(3), pages 288-298, April.
    3. Roberta Ara & Allan J. Wailoo, 2013. "Estimating Health State Utility Values for Joint Health Conditions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(2), pages 139-153, February.
    4. Kurinchi Gurusamy & Edward Wilson & Andrew Burroughs & Brian Davidson, 2012. "Intra-operative vs pre-operative endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with gallbladder and common bile duct stones," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 15-29, January.
    5. Ara, Roberta & Brazier, John, 2009. "Populating an economic model with health state utility values: moving towards better practice," MPRA Paper 29896, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. R L Keeney & R M Oliver, 2005. "Designing win-win financial loan products for consumers and businesses," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(9), pages 1030-1040, September.
    2. Prithviraj Dasgupta & P. Michael Melliar-Smith & Louise E. Moser, 2006. "Maximizing Welfare Through Cooperative Negotiation In A Multi-Agent Internet Economy," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(02), pages 331-351.
    3. Wright, Austin L. & Sonin, Konstantin & Driscoll, Jesse & Wilson, Jarnickae, 2020. "Poverty and economic dislocation reduce compliance with COVID-19 shelter-in-place protocols," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 544-554.
    4. Janvier D. Nkurunziza, 2005. "Reputation and Credit without Collateral in Africa`s Formal Banking," Economics Series Working Papers WPS/2005-02, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    5. KARRI PASANEN & MIKKO KURTTILA & JOUNI PYKÄlÄINEN & JYRKI KANGAS & PEKKA LESKINEN, 2005. "Mesta — Non-Industrial Private Forest Owners' Decision-Support Environment For The Evaluation Of Alternative Forest Plans Over The Internet," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(04), pages 601-620.
    6. Vadim Borokhov, 2014. "On the properties of nodal price response matrix in electricity markets," Papers 1404.3678, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2015.
    7. Gan, Li & Ju, Gaosheng & Zhu, Xi, 2015. "Nonparametric estimation of structural labor supply and exact welfare change under nonconvex piecewise-linear budget sets," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 188(2), pages 526-544.
    8. Peterson, Jeffrey M. & Boisvert, Richard N. & de Gorter, Harry, 1999. "Multifunctionality and Optimal Environmental Policies for Agriculture in an Open Economy," Working Papers 127701, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    9. Aldasoro, Iñaki & Delli Gatti, Domenico & Faia, Ester, 2017. "Bank networks: Contagion, systemic risk and prudential policy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 164-188.
    10. Gatti, Nicolas & Cecil, Michael & Baylis, Kathy & Estes, Lyndon & Blekking, Jordan & Heckelei, Thomas & Vergopolan, Noemi & Evans, Tom, 2023. "Is closing the agricultural yield gap a “risky” endeavor?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    11. Chorvat, Terrence, 2006. "Taxing utility," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-16, February.
    12. Delgado, Michael S. & Khanna, Neha, 2015. "Voluntary Pollution Abatement and Regulation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(1), pages 1-20, April.
    13. Bhattacharya, D., 2018. "Income Effects and Rationalizability in Multinomial Choice Models," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1884, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    14. List, Christian & Polak, Ben, 2010. "Introduction to judgment aggregation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 441-466, March.
    15. Gerd Gigerenzer, 1997. "Bounded Rationality: Models of Fast and Frugal Inference," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 133(II), pages 201-218, June.
    16. Franke, Jörg & Leininger, Wolfgang & Wasser, Cédric, 2018. "Optimal favoritism in all-pay auctions and lottery contests," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 22-37.
    17. Shuang Liu & Kirsten Maclean & Cathy Robinson, 2019. "A cost-effective framework to prioritise stakeholder participation options," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(3), pages 221-241, November.
    18. Che-Yuan Liang, 2017. "Optimal inequality behind the veil of ignorance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 431-455, October.
    19. Smith, Chris M. & Shaw, Duncan, 2019. "The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 403-416.
    20. Shino, Junnosuke, 2013. "A positive theory of fixed-rate funds-supplying operations in an accommodative financial environment," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 595-610.

    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:28:y:2008:i:1:p:102-112. 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.