IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v11y2002i1p71-85.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF‐36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain

Author

Listed:
  • William Hollingworth
  • Richard A. Deyo
  • Sean D. Sullivan
  • Scott S. Emerson
  • Darryl T. Gray
  • Jeffrey G. Jarvik

Abstract

Recent research has derived preference scores from the SF‐36. We compare the practicality and construct validity of SF‐36 derived preference scores with directly elicited time trade off (TTO) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. In this observational study, low back pain (LBP), patients were asked to complete disease specific, generic (SF‐36), and health state preference (VAS and TTO) instruments. Baseline SF‐36 responses were converted to preference scores using six published algorithms. Response rates for the SF‐36 derived and TTO preference values were 354 of 379 (93%) and 303 of 379 (80%), respectively. Thirty patients were excluded from the TTO exercise because of difficulties comprehending the scaling task. Choice based methods (standard gamble, TTO) yielded higher and more uniform estimates of preference (0.77–0.79) than non‐choice based methods (VAS) (0.42–0.70). Directly elicited TTO values were variable and had less power to distinguish among patients with differing severity of LBP. All SF‐36 derived preferences exhibited a minimum threshold implying a potential floor effect for severely ill patients. SF‐36 derived preferences demonstrated good practicality and construct validity in this setting, however different methods will yield disparate estimates of marginal benefit. This emphasises the need for a standardised algorithm for deriving SF‐36 preference scores. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • William Hollingworth & Richard A. Deyo & Sean D. Sullivan & Scott S. Emerson & Darryl T. Gray & Jeffrey G. Jarvik, 2002. "The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF‐36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 71-85, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:11:y:2002:i:1:p:71-85
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.650
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.650
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.650?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. Brooks, Richard AU -, 1996. "EuroQol: the current state of play," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 53-72, July.
    2. Joel Tsevat & Lee Goldman & Jane R. Soukup & Gervasio A. Lamas & Kathleen F. Connors & Carole C. Chapin & Thomas H. Lee, 1993. "Stability of Time-tradeoff Utilities in Survivors of Myocardial Infarction," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 13(2), pages 161-165, June.
    3. Dennis G. Fryback & Erik J. Dasbach & Ronald Klein & Barbara E.K. Klein & Norma Dorn & Kathy Peterson & Patrica A. Martin, 1993. "The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 13(2), pages 89-102, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Sherine E. Gabriel & Terry S. Kneeland & L. Joseph Melton & Megan M. Moncur & Bruce Ettinger & Anna N.A. Tosteson, 1999. "Health-related Quality of Life in Economic Evaluations for Osteoporosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(2), pages 141-148, April.
    6. Amir Shmueli, 1999. "Subjective Health Status and Health Values in the General Population," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(2), pages 122-127, April.
    7. Leslie A. Lenert & Daniel J. Cher & Mary K. Goldstein & Merlynn R. Bergen & Alan Garber, 1998. "The Effect of Search Procedures on Utility Elicitations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(1), pages 76-83, January.
    8. Joseph C. Gardiner & Marianne Huebner & James Jetton & Cathy J. Bradley, 2000. "Power and sample assessments for tests of hypotheses on cost‐effectiveness ratios," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(3), pages 227-234, April.
    9. Niklas Zethraeus & Magnus Johannesson, 1999. "A comparison of patient and social tariff values derived from the time trade‐off method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(6), pages 541-545, September.
    10. Dennis G. Fryback & William F. Lawrence & Patricia A. Martin & Ronald Klein & Barbara E.K. Klein, 1997. "Predicting Quality of Well-being Scores from the SF-36," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(1), pages 1-9, February.
    11. Dolan, Paul & Kind, Paul, 1996. "Inconsistency and health state valuations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 609-615, February.
    12. G. Ardine De Wit & Jan J.V. Busschbach & Frank Th. De Charro, 2000. "Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 109-126, March.
    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. Christine McDonough & Anna Tosteson, 2007. "Measuring Preferences for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 93-106, February.
    2. Laura J. Damschroder & Todd R. Roberts & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Peter A. Ubel, 2007. "Why People Refuse to Make Tradeoffs in Person Tradeoff Elicitations: A Matter of Perspective?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(3), pages 266-280, May.
    3. Søgaard, Rikke & Kløjgaard, Mirja Elisabeth & Olsen, Jens, 2010. "Methods for cost-effectiveness evaluation alongside trials in spine surgery," DaCHE discussion papers 2010:5, University of Southern Denmark, Dache - Danish Centre for Health Economics.
    4. Amir Shmueli, 2004. "The Relationship between the Visual Analog Scale and the SF-36 Scales in the General Population: An Update," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(1), pages 61-63, January.
    5. D. Stratmann‐Schoene & T. Kuehn & R. Kreienberg & R. Leidl, 2006. "A preference‐based index for the SF‐12," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 553-564, June.
    6. Stavros Petrou & Christine Hockley, 2005. "An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(11), pages 1169-1189, November.

    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. Christine McDonough & Anna Tosteson, 2007. "Measuring Preferences for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 93-106, February.
    2. Stavros Petrou & Christine Hockley, 2005. "An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(11), pages 1169-1189, November.
    3. Michaël Schwarzinger & Jean‐Louis Lanoë & Erik Nord & Isabelle Durand‐Zaleski, 2004. "Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade‐off responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 171-181, February.
    4. Hirsch Ruchlin & Ralph Insinga, 2008. "A Review of Health-Utility Data for Osteoarthritis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(11), pages 925-935, November.
    5. José M. Labeaga & Xisco Oliver & Amedeo Spadaro, "undated". "Measuring Changes in Health Capital," Working Papers 2005-15, FEDEA.
    6. Burstrom, Kristina & Johannesson, Magnus & Diderichsen, Finn, 2006. "A comparison of individual and social time trade-off values for health states in the general population," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 359-370, May.
    7. 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.
    8. P. Wang & E. Tai & J. Thumboo & Hubertus Vrijhoef & Nan Luo, 2014. "Does Diabetes Have an Impact on Health-State Utility? A Study of Asians in Singapore," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(3), pages 329-337, September.
    9. Patricia Cubi-Molla & Koonal Shah & Kristina Burström, 2018. "Experience-Based Values: A Framework for Classifying Different Types of Experience in Health Valuation Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(3), pages 253-270, June.
    10. 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.
    11. G. Ardine De Wit & Jan J.V. Busschbach & Frank Th. De Charro, 2000. "Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 109-126, March.
    12. Burstrom, Kristina & Johannesson, Magnus & Diderichsen, Finn, 2001. "Health-related quality of life by disease and socio-economic group in the general population in Sweden," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 51-69, January.
    13. Peter Lindgren & Thomas Kahan & Neil Poulter & Martin Buxton & Patrick Svarvar & Björn Dahlöf & Bengt Jönsson, 2007. "Utility loss and indirect costs following cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients: the ASCOT health economic substudy," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 8(1), pages 25-30, March.
    14. Mason, J.E. & Denton, B.T. & Shah, N.D. & Smith, S.A., 2014. "Optimizing the simultaneous management of blood pressure and cholesterol for type 2 diabetes patients," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(3), pages 727-738.
    15. Brazier, JE & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2008. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) from non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," MPRA Paper 29808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    17. Louis S. Matza & Katherine J. Kim & Holly Yu & Katherine A. Belden & Antonia F. Chen & Mark Kurd & Bruce Y. Lee & Jason Webb, 2019. "Health state utilities associated with post-surgical Staphylococcus aureus infections," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 819-827, August.
    18. Thébaut, Clémence, 2013. "Dealing with moral dilemma raised by adaptive preferences in health technology assessment: The example of growth hormones and bilateral cochlear implants," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 102-109.
    19. Efthymiadou, Olina & Mossman, Jean & Kanavos, Panos, 2019. "Health related quality of life aspects not captured by EQ-5D-5L: Results from an international survey of patients," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 159-165.
    20. Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:hlthec:v:11:y:2002:i:1:p:71-85. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.