IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v7y1987i4p220-233.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Solid Recommendations from Soft Numbers

Author

Listed:
  • Robert F. Nease JR.
  • Yann Bonduelle

Abstract

The authors review the probability threshold approach to test/treatment decisions developed by Pauker and Kassirer, 6,7 emphasizing that certain aspects of the nature of medical decisions call for a new approach. The utility threshold approach, while maintaining all the advantages of threshold methods in general, brings improvements. It diminishes the need to accurately assess one of the decision's parameters: the patient's utility for the outcome states. For a simple case of one disease with three outcome states (cured, diseased, dead) and one test, three utility thresholds are derived. The treat/no treat threshold, denoted by u*, separates the utility space in two. If the patient's value for the diseased state is greater than u*, the analyst can feel confident in recommending the patient forego treatment. Similar interpre tations are developed for u 1 , the no treatment/test utility threshold (the value u must take, given a positive test result, for the patient to be indifferent between foregoing and receiving treatment), and u 2 , the test/treatment utility threshold (the value u must take, given a negative test result, for the patient to be indifferent between foregoing and receiving treatment). Key words: medical decision analysis; threshold analysis; utility threshold. (Med Decis Making 7:220-233, 1987)

Suggested Citation

  • Robert F. Nease JR. & Yann Bonduelle, 1987. "Solid Recommendations from Soft Numbers," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 7(4), pages 220-233, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:7:y:1987:i:4:p:220-233
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X8700700404
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X8700700404
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X8700700404?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. H. Llewellyn-Thomas & H.J. Sutherland & R. Tibshirani & A. Ciampi & J.E. Till & N.F. Boyd, 1982. "The Measurement of Patients' Values in Medicine," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 2(4), pages 449-462, December.
    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. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    2. Han Bleichrodt, 2002. "A new explanation for the difference between time trade‐off utilities and standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 447-456, July.
    3. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Maria Abellan-Perpiñan & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades & Ildefonso Mendez-Martinez, 2007. "Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement Under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 469-482, March.
    4. Adam Oliver, 2005. "Testing the internal consistency of the lottery equivalents method using health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 149-159, February.
    5. Kharroubi, Samer & Brazier, John E. & O'Hagan, Anthony, 2007. "Modelling covariates for the SF-6D standard gamble health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(6), pages 1242-1252, March.
    6. Bleichrodt, Han & Quiggin, John, 2013. "Capabilities as menus: A non-welfarist basis for QALY evaluation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 128-137.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Arthur E. Attema & Werner B.F. Brouwer, 2014. "Deriving Time Discounting Correction Factors For Tto Tariffs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4), pages 410-425, April.
    10. David Parkin & Nancy Devlin, 2006. "Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost‐utility analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 653-664, July.
    11. Raisa B. Deber & Vivek Goel, 1990. "Using Explicit Decision Rules to Manage Issues of Justice, Risk, and Ethics in Decision Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 10(3), pages 181-194, August.
    12. Adam Oliver, 2003. "Testing rank‐dependent utility theory for health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(10), pages 863-871, October.
    13. Nitin Mehta & Jian Ni & Kannan Srinivasan & Baohong Sun, 2017. "A Dynamic Model of Health Insurance Choices and Healthcare Consumption Decisions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 338-360, May.
    14. Annette M. Cormier O'Connor & Norman F. Boyd & David L. Tritchler & Yuri Kriukov & Heather Sutherland & James E. Till, 1985. "Eliciting Preferences for Alternative Cancer Drug Treatments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 5(4), pages 453-463, December.
    15. J. Leighton Read & Robert J. Quinn & Donald M. Berwick & Harvey V. Fineberg & Milton C. Weinstein, 1984. "Preferences for Health Outcomes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 4(3), pages 315-329, August.
    16. Claire Gudex & Paul Kind & Harmanna van Dalen & Mary-Alison Durand & Jenny Morris & Alan Williams, 1993. "Comparing scaling methods for health state valuations - Rosser revisited," Working Papers 107chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    17. L. M. Lamers & C. A. M. Bouwmans & A. van Straten & M. C. H. Donker & L. Hakkaart, 2006. "Comparison of EQ‐5D and SF‐6D utilities in mental health patients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(11), pages 1229-1236, November.
    18. Jose Mª Abellán Perpiñán & Fernando Ignacio Sánchez Martínez & Jorge Eduardo Martínez Pérez & Ildefonso Méndez Martínez, 2009. "The QALY model wich came in from a general population survey: roughly multiplicative, broadly nonlinear and sometimes contex-dependt," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2009/04, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    19. Suzanne Robinson, 2011. "Test–retest reliability of health state valuation techniques: the time trade off and person trade off," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(11), pages 1379-1391, November.
    20. Peter Wakker & Anne Stiggelbout, 1995. "Explaining Distortions in Utility Elicitation through the Rank-dependent Model for Risky Choices," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 15(2), pages 180-186, June.

    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:7:y:1987:i:4:p:220-233. 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.