Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Are Values, Utilities, and Preferences? A Clarification in the Context of Decision Making in Health Care, and an Exploration of Measurement Issues

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Health Decision Science

Abstract

This chapter first aims to clarify the concepts of values, utilities, and preferences, terms that are often used interchangeably but have distinct meaning and that should be used differentially depending on the context. The chapter then describes current methods to assess values, utilities, and preferences as a function of the level of health decision making at hand, i.e., macro-, meso-, or micro-level and the goal of the assessment. It concludes by offering key directions for future research on how to improve current preference elicitation methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abdellaoui, M., Barrios, C., & Wakker, P. P. (2007). Reconciling introspective utility with revealed preference: Experimental arguments based on prospect theory. Journal of Econometrics, 138, 356–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abhyankar, P., Bekker, H. L., Summers, B. A., & Velikova, G. (2011). Why values elicitation techniques enable people to make informed decisions about cancer trial participation. Health Expectations, 14(Suppl 1), 20–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Albrecht, G. L., & Devlieger, P. J. (1999). The disability paradox: High quality of life against all odds. Social Science and Medicine, 48, 977–988.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Alolabi, N., Alolabi, B., Mundi, R., Karanicolas, P. J., Adachi, J. D., & Bhandari, M. (2011). Surgical preferences of patients at risk of hip fractures: Hemiarthroplasty versus total hip arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 12, 289–298.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Augustovski, F., Rey-Ares, L., Irazola, V., Oppe, M., & Devlin N. J. (2013). Lead versus lag-time trade-off variants: Does it make any difference? European Journal of Health Economics, 14(Suppl 1), S25–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J. (2008). Thinking and deciding. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, F. L., Smith, R., & Lewith, G. T. (2013). Patient preferences for technical skills versus interpersonal skills in chiropractors and physiotherapists treating low back pain. Family Practice, 30, 197–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bleichrodt, H. (2002). A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Economics, 11, 447–456.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blom, R. L., Nieuwkerk, P. T., Van Heijl, M., Bindels, P., Klinkenbijl, J. H., Sprangers, M. A., et al. (2012). Patient preferences in screening for recurrent disease after potentially curative esophagectomy. Digestive Surgery, 29, 206–212.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bontenbal, M., Nortier, J. W., Beex, L. V., Bakker, P., Hupperets, P. S., Nooij, M. A., et al. (2000). Adjuvant systemic therapy for patients with resectable breast cancer: Guideline from the Dutch National Breast Cancer Platform and the Dutch Society for Medical Oncology. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Geneeskunde, 144, 984–989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, P. F., & Strombom, I. (1998). Improving health care by understanding patient preferences: The role of computer technology. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 5, 257–262.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, G. B., Elstein, A., Kuzel, T. M., Nadler, R. B., Sharifi, R., & Bennett, C. L. (1999). A multiattribute model of prostate cancer patients’ preferences for health states. Quality of Life Research, 8, 171–180.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Coast, J., Smith, R. D., & Lorgelly, P. (2008). Welfarism, extra-welfarism and capability: The spread of ideas in health economics. Social Science and Medicine, 67, 1190–1198.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davison, B. J., & Breckon, E. N. (2012). Impact of health information-seeking behavior and personal factors on preferred role in treatment decision making in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Cancer Nursing, 35, 411–418.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35, 1095–1108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Edelaar-Peeters, Y., Stiggelbout, A. M., & Van den Hout, W. B. (2014). Qualitative and quantitative analysis of interviewer help answering the time tradeoff. Medical Decision Making, 34, 655–665 (provisionally accepted).

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, R. M., & Peters, E. (2009). Beyond information: Exploring patients’ preferences. JAMA, 302, 195–197.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fagerlin, A., Pignone, M., Abhyankar, P., Col, N., Feldman-Stewart, D., Gavaruzzi, T., et al. (2013). Clarifying values: An updated review. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 13, S8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Boyle, M., & Torrance, G. (1995). Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health utilities index. Pharmacoeconomics, 7, 490–502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman-Stewart, D., Brennenstuhl, S., Brundage, M. D., & Roques, T. (2006). An explicit values clarification task: Developmental and validation. Patient Education and Counseling, 63, 350–356.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman-Stewart, D., Brundage, M. D., Van Manen, L., & Svenson, O. (2004). Patient-focussed decision-making in early-stage prostate cancer: Insights from a cognitively based decision aid. Health Expectations, 7, 126–141.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. (1991). Value elicitation: Is there anything in there? American Psychologist, 46, 835–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraenkel, L., Bogardus, S., & Concato, J. (2002). Patient preferences for treatment of lupus nephritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 47, 421–428.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fraenkel, L., Gulanski, B., & Wittink, D. R. (2006). Preference for hip protectors among older adults at high risk for osteoporotic fractures. Journal of Rheumatology, 33, 2064–2068.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaglio, B., Glasgow, R. E., & Bull, S. S. (2012). Do patient preferences for health information vary by health literacy or numeracy? A qualitative assessment. Journal of Health Communication, 17 (Suppl 3), 109–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gold, M. R., Siegel, J. E., Russell, L. B., & Weinstein, M. C. (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, R., Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (1993). Valuing environmental resources—A constructive approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, 177–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, S. J., Stiggelbout, A. M., Wakker, P. P., Vliet Vlieland, T. P., Leer, J. W., Nooy, M. A., et al. (1998). Patients’ utilities for cancer treatments: A study of the chained procedure for the standard gamble and time tradeoff. Medical Decision Making, 18, 391–399.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kassirer, J. P. (1994). Incorporating patients’ preferences into medical decisions. New England Journal of Medicine, 330, 1895–1896.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, M. N., Gafni, A., Markham, B., & MacFarlane, D. (1992). A bedside decision instrument to elicit a patient’s preference concerning adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Annals of Internal Medicine, 117, 53–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Llewellyn-Thomas, H. A., Williams, J. I., Levy, L., & Naylor, C. D. (1996). Using a trade-off technique to assess patients’ treatment preferences for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Medical Decision Making, 16, 262–282.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Matheis-Kraft, C., & Roberto, K. A. (1997). Influence of a values discussion on congruence between elderly women and their families on critical health care decisions. Journal of Women & Aging, 9, 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, A. M., Tugwell, P., Wells, G. A., Elmslie, T., Jolly, E., Hollingworth, G., et al. (1998). A decision aid for women considering hormone therapy after menopause: Decision support framework and evaluation. Patient Education and Counseling, 33, 267–279.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ormond, K. E., Banuvar, S., Daly, A., Iris, M., Minogue, J., & Elias, S. (2009). Information preferences of high literacy pregnant women regarding informed consent models for genetic carrier screening. Patient Education and Counseling, 75, 244–250.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1992). Behavioral decision research: A constructive processing perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 87–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Schkade, D. (1999). Measuring constructed preferences: Towards a building code. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 243–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfützner, A., Schipper, C., Niemeyer, M., Qvist, M., Löffler, A., Forst, T., et al. (2012). Comparison of patient preference for two insulin injection pen devices in relation to patient dexterity skills. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 6, 910–916.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Pieterse, A. H., De Vries, M., Kunneman, M., Stiggelbout, A. M., & Feldman-Stewart, D. (2013). Theory-informed design of values clarification methods: A cognitive psychological perspective on patient health-related decision making. Social Science and Medicine, 77, 156–163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pieterse, A. H., Stiggelbout, A. M., Baas-Thijssen, M. C., Van de Velde, C. J., & Marijnen, C. A. (2007). Benefit from preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer treatment: Disease-free patients’ and oncologists’ preferences. British Journal of Cancer, 97, 717–724.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Pieterse, A. H., Stiggelbout, A. M., & Marijnen, C. A. (2010). Methodologic evaluation of adaptive conjoint analysis to assess patient preferences: An application in oncology. Health Expectations, 13, 392–405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rohan, M. J. (2000). A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 255–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, L. B., Gold, M. R., Siegel, J. E., Daniels, N., & Weinstein, M. C. (1996). The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. JAMA, 276, 1172–1177.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M., & Farrar, S. (2000). Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ, 320, 1530–1533.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human-values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheridan, S. L., Griffith, J. M., Behrend, L., Gizlice, Z., Jianwen, C., & Pignone, M. P. (2010). Effect of adding a values clarification exercise to a decision aid on heart disease prevention: A randomized trial. Medical Decision Making, 30, E28–E39.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. K., Trevena, L., Simpson, J. M., Barratt, A., Nutbeam, D., & McCaffery, K. J. (2010). A decision aid to support informed choices about bowel cancer screening among adults with low education: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 341, c5370.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, D., Bennett, C. L., Barry, M. J., Col, N. F., Eden, K. B., Holmes-Rovner, M., et al. (2011). Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 10, CD001431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiggelbout, A. M., & De Haes, J. C. J. M. (2001). Patient preference for cancer therapy: An overview of measurement approaches. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19, 220–230.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stiggelbout, A. M., & De Vogel-Voogt, E. (2008). Health-state utilities: A framework for studying the gap between the imagined and the real. Value in Health, 11, 76–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Street, R. L, Jr., Elwyn, G., & Epstein, R. M. (2012). Patient preferences and healthcare outcomes: An ecological perspective. Expert Reviews in PharmacoEconomics and Outcomes Research, 12, 167–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, H. J., & Till, J. E. (1993). Quality of life assessments and levels of decision making: Differentiating objectives. Quality of Life Research, 2, 297–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ter Hoeven, C. L., Zandbelt, L. C., Fransen, S., De Haes, H., Oort, F., Geijsen, D., et al. (2011). Measuring cancer patients’ reasons for their information preference: Construction of the Considerations Concerning Cancer Information (CCCI) questionnaire. Psycho-Oncology, 20, 1228–1235.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tilling, C., Devlin, N., Tsuchiya, A., & Buckingham, K. (2010). Protocols for time tradeoff valuations of health states worse than dead: A literature review. Medical Decision Making, 30, 610–619.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, G. W. (1976). Preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 10, 129–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, G. W., & Feeny, D. (1989). Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Journal of Technological Assessment in Health Care, 5, 559–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, G. W., Feeny, D., & Furlong, W. (2001). Visual analog scales: Do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Medical Decision Making, 21, 329–334.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, G. W., Feeny, D. H., Furlong, W. J., Barr, R. D., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Q. (1996). Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system: Health utilities index mark 2. Medical Care, 34, 702–722.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect-theory—Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unic, I., Stalmeier, P. F., Verhoef, L. C., & Van Daal, W. A. (1998). Assessment of the time-tradeoff values for prophylactic mastectomy of women with a suspected genetic predisposition to breast cancer. Medical Decision Making, 18, 268–277.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vela, K. C., Walton, R. E., Trope, M., Windschitl, P., & Caplan, D. J. (2012). Patient preferences regarding 1-visit versus 2-visit root canal therapy. Journal of Endodontics, 38, 1322–1325.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, P., & Stiggelbout, A. (1995). Explaining distortions in utility elicitation through the rank-dependent model for risky choices. Medical Decision Making, 15, 180–186.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Decision Making, Leiden Quality of Care Institute, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Arwen H. Pieterse & Anne M. Stiggelbout

Authors
  1. Arwen H. Pieterse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne M. Stiggelbout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arwen H. Pieterse .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA

    Michael A. Diefenbach

  2. Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

    Suzanne Miller-Halegoua

  3. Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Deborah J. Bowen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pieterse, A.H., Stiggelbout, A.M. (2016). What Are Values, Utilities, and Preferences? A Clarification in the Context of Decision Making in Health Care, and an Exploration of Measurement Issues. In: Diefenbach, M., Miller-Halegoua, S., Bowen, D. (eds) Handbook of Health Decision Science. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3486-7_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation