Purpose.To evaluate the validity of standard gamble (SG)utilities, by comparing utilities with decision-making behavior in a group of lung transplant candidates facing a risky health decision.Methods.The authors elicited SG utilities for current health from 57 transplant candidates. They assessed the concordance between utility scores and patients' self-reported readiness to be placed on the transplant waiting list(“listed”). Because transplantation represents a real-life gamble with a short-term survival probability of 85%, the authors defined their minimum validity criterion as utility for current health 0.85 in transplant-ready patients.Results.Utilities were significantly higher in patients who were not ready for listing (n = 22, median utility = 0.79, range 0.06-1) than in those who were ready or listed (n = 35, median utility = 0.50, range 0-0.85, P < 0.00005). All transplant-ready patients had utilities 0.85 for current health.Conclusions.Low SG utilities were associated with transplant readiness in this population of lung transplant candidates. These results provide one line of evidence supporting the validity of SG utilities as a measure of health-related quality of life, using the criterion of decision-making behavior.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal . J Health Econ. 1986;5: 1-30 .
2.
2. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine . JAMA. 1996;276: 1253-1258 .
3.
3. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of Games and Behavior. New York: John Wiley ; 1953.
4.
4. Ramsey SD, Patrick DL, Lewis S, Albert RK, Raghu G. Improvement in quality of life after lung transplantation: a preliminary study . J Heart Lung Transplant. 1995;14: 870-877 .
5.
5. Hellinger FJ. Expected utility theory and risky choices with health outcomes . Med Care. 1989;27: 273-279 .
6.
6. Slovic P. The construction of preference . Am Psychol. 1995;50: 364-371 .
7.
7. Stalmeier PF, Goldstein MK, Holmes AM, et al. What should be reported in a methods section on utility assessment? Med Decis Making. 2001;21: 200-207 .
8.
8. Nease RFJr, Tsai R, Hynes LM, Littenberg B. Automated utility assessment of global health . Qual Life Res. 1996;5: 175-182 .
9.
9. Pearson SD, Goldman L, Orav EJ, et al. Triage decisions for emergency department patients with chest pain: do physicians' risk attitudes make the difference? J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10: 557-564 .
10.
10. Allison JJ, Kiefe CI, Cook EF, Gerrity MS, Orav EJ, Centor R. The association of physician attitudes about uncertainty and risk taking with resource use in a Medicare HMO . Med Decis Making. 1998;18: 320-329 .
11.
11. Tsevat J, Sherman SN, McElwee JA, et al. The will to live among HIV-infected patients . Ann Intern Med. 1999;131: 194-198 .
12.
12. Hosenpud JD, Bennett LE, Keck BM, Fiol B, Boucek MM, Novick RJ. The Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: sixteenth official report—1999 . J Heart Lung Trans-plant. 1999;18: 611-626 .
13.
13. Unic I, Verhoef LC, Stalmeier PF, van Daal WA. Prophylactic mastectomy or screening in women suspected to have the BRCA1/2 mutation: a prospective pilot study of women's treatment choices and medical and decision-analytic recommendations . Med Decis Making. 2000;20: 251-262 .
14.
14. Kuppermann M, Nease RF. Using utility difference scores to predict prenatal testing decisions . Med Decis Making. 2001;21: 517 .
15.
15. Heckerling PS, Verp MS, Hadro TA. Preferences of pregnant women for amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling for prenatal testing: comparison of patients' choices and those of a decision-analytic model . J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47: 1215-1228 .
16.
16. Heckerling PS, Verp MS, Albert N. Patient or physician preferences for decision analysis: the prenatal genetic testing decision . Med Decis Making. 1999;19: 66-77 .
17.
17. O'Connor AM, Davies BL, Dulberg CS, et al. Psychometric proper-ties of health risk attitude measures in predicting cessation among pregnant smokers . Med Care. 1993;31: 658-662 .
18.
18. O'Connor AM, Pennie RA. Reliability and validity of measures used to elicit health expectations, values, tradeoffs and intentions to be immunized for hepatitis B . J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48: 255-262 .
19.
19. Singer LG, Gould MK, Glidden DV, Theodore J. Effect of lung transplantation on quality-adjusted survival in emphysema . J Heart Lung Transplant. 2002;21: 154 .
20.
20. Bala MV, Wood LL, Zarkin GA, Norton EC, Gafni A, O'Brien BJ. Are health states “timeless”? The case of the standard gamble method . J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52: 1047-1053 .
21.
21. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk . Econometrica. 1979;47: 263-292 .
