IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v29y2009i1p7-14.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Randomized Study of Scleroderma Health State Values: A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words, and Quite a Few Utilities

Author

Listed:
  • Dinesh Khanna

    (Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, Department of Health Services, School of Public Health, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, dkhanna@mednet.ucla.edu)

  • Robert M. Kaplan

    (Department of Health Services, School of Public Health, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA)

  • Mark H. Eckman

    (Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, Institute for the Study of Health, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH)

  • Ron D. Hays

    (Department of Health Services, School of Public Health, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, RAND, Santa Monica, CA)

  • Anthony C. Leonard

    (Institute for the Study of Health, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH)

  • Shaari S. Ginsburg

    (Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH)

  • Joel Tsevat

    (Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, Institute for the Study of Health, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH)

Abstract

Objective. Assigning utilities to hypothetical health states requires that the health states be described in adequate detail, but there is no agreement on exactly how health states should be described. We assess utilities from the general public for health states common in scleroderma (SSc) by describing the health states in writing alone v. with photographs of patients with SSc. Methods. Subjects rated several SSc health states on a 0 to 100 rating scale (RS) and completed computer-assisted time tradeoff (TTO; range, 0.0 — 1.0) and standard gamble (SG; range, 0.0 — 1.0) assessments. Half of the subjects were assigned to be shown photographs of patients with SSc health states in addition to written health state descriptions, whereas the other half were given only the written descriptions. Results. Of the 213 participants, 133 (62%) were female, 138 (65%) were Caucasian, and 62 (29%) were African American. Median RS, TTO, and SG scores for 5 SSc health states ranged from 20 to 70, 0.28 to 0.94, and 0.50 to 0.90, respectively. In bivariate analyses, showing pictures was associated with lower RS scores for 2 of 5 health states and lower SG values for all 5 health states ( P

Suggested Citation

  • Dinesh Khanna & Robert M. Kaplan & Mark H. Eckman & Ron D. Hays & Anthony C. Leonard & Shaari S. Ginsburg & Joel Tsevat, 2009. "A Randomized Study of Scleroderma Health State Values: A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words, and Quite a Few Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(1), pages 7-14, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:1:p:7-14
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08322010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X08322010
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X08322010?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. Peep F. M. Stalmeier & M. K. Goldstein & A. M. Holmes & L. Lenert & J. Miyamoto & A. M. Stiggelbout & G. W. Torrance & J. Tsevat, 2001. "What Should Be Reported in a Methods Section on Utility Assessment?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(3), pages 200-207, May.
    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. Michael J. Zoratti & A. Simon Pickard & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Daniel Ollendorf & Andrew Lloyd & Kelvin K W Chan & Don Husereau & John E. Brazier & Murray Krahn & Mitchell Levine & Lehana Thabane & Fe, 2021. "Evaluating the conduct and application of health utility studies: a review of critical appraisal tools and reporting checklists," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 723-733, July.
    2. Marie-Josée Dion & Pierre Tousignant & Jean Bourbeau & Dick Menzies & Kevin Schwartzman, 2002. "Measurement of Health Preferences among Patients with Tuberculous Infection and Disease," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(1_suppl), pages 102-114, September.
    3. Lisa Prosser & James Hammitt & Ron Keren, 2007. "Measuring Health Preferences for Use in Cost-Utility and Cost-Benefit Analyses of Interventions in Children," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(9), pages 713-726, September.
    4. Shaheen, Rubina & Lindholm, Lars, 2006. "Quality of life among pregnant women with chronic energy deficiency in rural Bangladesh," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(2-3), pages 128-134, October.
    5. Arthur Attema & Yvette Edelaar-Peeters & Matthijs Versteegh & Elly Stolk, 2013. "Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 53-64, July.
    6. Trude Arnesen & Mari Trommald, 2005. "Are QALYs based on time trade‐off comparable? – A systematic review of TTO methodologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 39-53, January.
    7. Versteegh, MM & Attema, AE & Oppe, M & Devlin, NJ & Stolk, EA, 2012. "Time to tweak the TTO. But how?," MPRA Paper 37989, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:29:y:2009:i:1:p:7-14. 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.