Advertisement

Utility Assessment: Methods and Research

  • Gretchen B. Chapman
  • Arthur S. Elstein
Part of the Cancer Treatment and Research book series (CTAR, volume 97)

Abstract

Many medical decisions are strongly influenced by the goals and preferences of the particular patient. Because the evidence favoring specific treatments for many cancers is mixed, some investigators have argued that patient preferences are an important factor in these treatment decisions.[1,2] The emphasis on patient involvement introduces the question of how to measure patient preferences and how to incorporate them into a decision.

Keywords

Laryngeal Cancer Utility Score Localize Prostate Cancer Perfect Health Indifference Point 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Middleton RG. Counseling patients about therapy for localized prostate cancer. Sem Urol Oncol 1995; 13(3): 187–90.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Krahn MD, Mahoney JE, Eckman MH, Trachtenberg J, Pauker SG, Detsky AS. Screening for prostate cancer: A decision analytic view. J Am Med Assoc 1994; 272:773–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fleming C, Wasson JH, Albertsen PC, Barry MJ, Wennberg JE. A decision analysis of alternative treatment strategies for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Am Med Assoc 1993; 269:2650–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bakker C, van der Linden S. Health related utility measurement: An introduction. J Rheumatol 1995; 22:1197–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bakker CH, Rutten-van Molken M, van Doorslaer E, Bennett K, van der Linden S. Health related utility measurement in rheumatology: An introduction. Patient Educ Counsel 1993; 20:145–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Redelmeier DA, Detsky AS. A clinician’s guide to utility measurement. Primary Care 1995; 22(2):271–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ferguson BM, Keown PA. An introduction to utility measurement in health care. Infect Control Hosp Epidem 1995; 16(4):240–7.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981; 211:453–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stiggelbout, Kiebert, Kievit, et al. The “utility” of the time trade-off method in cancer patients: Feasibility and proportional trade-off. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48:120714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Glasziou PP, Bromwich S, Simes RJ. Quality of life six months after myocardial infarction treated with thrombolytic therapy. Med J Australia 1994; 161:532–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    O’Leary, Fairclough, Jankowski, Weeks. Comparison of TTO utilities and rating scale values of cancer patients and their relatives: Evidence for a possible plateau relationship. Med Decis Making 1995; 15:132–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, et al. The Beaver Dam health outcomes study: Initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making 1993; 13:89–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fowler, Cleary, Massagli, Weissman, Epstein. The role of reluctance to give up life in the measurement of the values of health states. Med Decis Making 1995; 15:195–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Singer PA, Tasch ES, Stocking C, Rubin S, Siegler M, Weischselbaum R. Sex or survival: Tradeoffs between quality and quantity of life. J Clin Oncol 1991; 9(2):328–334.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Patrick DL, Starks HE, Cain KC, et al. Measuring preferences for health states worse than death. Med Decis Making 1994; 14:9–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zug KA, Littenberg B, Baughman RD, Kneeland T, Nease RF, Sumner W, O’Connor GT, Jones R, Morrison E, Cimis R. Assessing the preferences of patients with psoriasis: A quantitative, utility approach. Arch Dermatol 1995; 131:561–568.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van der Donk J, Levendag PC, Kuijpers AJ, Roest FH, Habbema JD, Meeuwis CA, Schmitz PI. Patient participation in clinical decision-making for treatment of T3 laryngeal cancer: A comparison of state and process utilities. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13:2369–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stiggelbout AM, Eijkemans, Kiebert GM, et al. The “utility” of the visual analog scale in medical decision making and technology assessment: Is it an alternative to the Time Trade-Off? Int J Tech Assessment Health Care 1996; 12:291–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Torrance GW. Social preference for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Econ Plan Sci 1976; 10:129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stiggelbout AM, Kiebert GM, Kievit J et al. Utility assessment in cancer patients: Adjustment of time trade-off scores for the utility of life years and comparison with standard gamble scores. Med Decis Making 1994; 14:82–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Boyd, Sutherland, Heasman et al. Whose utilities for decision analysis? Med Decis Making 1990; 10:58–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ashby J, O’Hanlon M, Buxton MJ. The time trade-off technique: How do the valuations of breast cancer patients compare to those of other groups? Quality of Life Res 1994; 3:257–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Sutherland HJ, Thiel EC. Do patients’ evaluations of a future health state change when they actually enter that state? Medical Care 1993; 31:1002–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yellen SB, Cella DF, Leslie WT. Age and clinical decision making in oncology patients. J Natl Cancer Institute. 1994; 86:1766–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McQuellan RP, Muss HB, Hoffman SL, Russell G, Craven B, Yellen SB. Patient preferences for treatment of metastatic breast cancer: A study of women with early stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13:858–868.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Katz JN, Phillips CB, Fossel AH, Liang MH. Stability and responsiveness of utility measures. Med Care 1994; 32:183–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: Results from a general population study. Health Economics 1996; 5:141–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kiebert GM, Stiggelbout AM, Kievit J, Leer JW, van de Velde CJ, de Haes HJ. Choices in oncology: Factors that influence patients’ treatment preference. Quality of Life Res 1994; 3:175–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mazur DJ, Merz JF. How older patients’ treatment preferences are influenced by disclosures about therapeutic uncertainty: Surgery versus expectant management for localized prostate cancer. J Am Geriatric Soc 1996; 44:934–7.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chapman GB, Elstein AS, Kuzel TM, Sharifi R, Nadler RB, Andrews A, Bennett CL. Prostate cancer patients’ utility or health states: How it looks depends on where you stand. Manuscript under review, 1996.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Levine MN, Gafni A, Markham B, MacFarlane D. A bedside decision instrument to elicit a patient’s preference concerning adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 1992; 117:53–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cantor SB, Spann SJ, Volk RJ, Cardenas MP, Warren MM. Prostate cancer screening: A decision analysis. J Fam Prac 1995; 41:33–41.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Verhoefl CG, Stalpers JA, Verbeek ALM, Wobbs T, van Daal WAJ. Breast conserving treatment or mastectomy in early breast cancer: A clinical decision analysis with special reference to the risk of local recurrence. Eur J Cancer 1991; 27. 1132–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gretchen B. Chapman
    • 1
  • Arthur S. Elstein
    • 2
  1. 1.Rutgers UniversityNew Brunswick
  2. 2.University of Illinois at Chicago College of MedicineChicago

Personalised recommendations