Background: Valuations of hypothetical health state scenarios can be affected by participant characteristics. Methods: The authors interviewed 108 veterans using the visual analogue scale (VAS), standard gamble (SG), time tradeoff (TTO), and willingness to pay (WTP) tomeasure health values for 1) current health and 2) 3 hypothetical health states portrayed in written scenarios describing cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM), a degenerative spine condition. They used bivariate rank order and multivariate regression analyses to assess the relationship between CSM values, participants’ characteristics, and participants’ current health values. Results: Participants were predominantly male (89.8%) andCaucasian (75.9%), with a median age of 58.3 years and a median annual income of $15,000. Median values for current health were VAS, 0.75; SG, 0.80; TTO, 0.80; and WTP, $25,000. In the multivariate analysis, higher CSM values were associated with better current health as measured with the SG, TTO, and WTP (for all,P < 0.001); there was no association with VAS values (P = 0.157). Conclusions: Health values for CSM are positively associated with the current health of the study population.
1. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. New York: John Wiley; 1953.
2.
2. Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res. 1972;7:118–133.
3.
3. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales. A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. New York: Oxford University Press; 1989.
4.
4. Diener A, O’Brien B, Gafni A. Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Econ. 1998;7:313–326.
5.
5. Sackett DL, Torrance GW. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chronic Disord. 1978;31:697–704.
6.
6. Saigal CS, Gornbein J, Nease R, Litwin MS. Predictors of utilities for health states in early stage prostate cancer. J Urol. 2001;166:942–946.
7.
7. Tsevat J, Sherman SN, McElwee JA, and others. The will to live among HIV-infected patients. Ann Intern Med. 1999;131:194–198.
8.
8. Tsevat J, Cook EF, Green ML, and others. Health values of the seriously ill. SUPPORT investigators. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122:514–520.
9.
9. Dolan P. The effect of experience of illness on health state valuations. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:551–564.
10.
10. DeWit GA, Busschbach JJ, De Charro FT. Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count?Health Econ. 2000;9:109–126.
12. Najman J, Levine S. Evaluating the impact of medical care and technologies on the quality of life: a review and critique. Soc Sci Med. 1981;15F:105–115.
13.
13. Epstein AM, Hall JA, Tognetti J, Son LH, Conant L. Using proxies to evaluate quality of life. Med Care. 1989;27:S91–S98.
14.
14. Sprangers MA, Schwartz CE. Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:1507–1515.
15.
15. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
16.
16. VA announces record budget, health care changes. Office of Public Affairs, Media Relations, Department of Veterans Affairs, January 17, 2003.
17.
17. Brain WR, Northfield D, Wilkinson M. The neurological manifestations of cervical spondylosis. Brain. 1952;75:187–225.
18.
18. Lees F, Turner JWA. Natural history and prognosis of cervical spondylosis. Br Med J. 1963;2:1607–1610.
19.
19. Nurick S. The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain. 1972;95:87–100.
20.
20. Nurick S. The natural history and the results of surgical treatment of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain. 1972;95:101–108.
21.
21. King JT Jr, Tsevat J, Moossy JJ, Roberts MS. Preference-based Quality of life Measurement in Patients With Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy. Spine. 2004.
22.
22. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. A36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–483.
23.
23. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales: A User’s Manual. Boston, MA: Health Assessment Lab; 1994.
24.
24. Lenert LA, Sturley A, Watson ME. iMPACT3: Internet-based development and administration of utility elicitation protocols. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:464–474.
25.
25. Cooper PR, Epstein F. Radical resection of intramedullary spinal cord tumors in adults: recent experience in 29 patients. J Neurosurg. 1985;63:492–499.
26.
26. Harsh GR, Sypert GW, Weinstein PR, Ross DA, Wilson CB. Cervical stenosis due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. J Neurosurg. 1987;67:649–657.
27.
27. Chiles BW III, Leonard MA, Choudhri HF, Cooper PR. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: patterns of neurological deficit and recovery after anterior cervical decompression. Neurosurg. 1999;44:762–770.
28.
28. Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW. Multi-attribute health status classification systems: health utilities index. Pharmaco Economics. 1995;7:490–502.
29.
29. Kazis LE. Health Status and Outcomes of Veterans: Physical and Mental Components Summary Scores Veterans SF-36 1999 Large Health Survey of Veteran Enrollees. Washington, DC: Office of Quality and Performance, Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs; 2000.
30.
30. Cuzick J. A Wilcoxon-type test for trend. Stat Med. 1985;4:87–90.
31.
31. Miyamoto JM, Eraker SA. Parameter estimates for a QALY utility model. Med Decis Making. 1985;5:191–213.
32.
32. Stiggelbout AM. Assessing patients’ preferences. In: Chapman GB, Sonnenberg FA, editors. Decision Making in Health Care: Theory, Psychology, and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2000. p 289–312.
33.
33. O’Brien B, Viramontes JL. Willingness to pay: a valid and reliable measure of health state preference?Med Decis Making. 1994;14:289–297.
34.
34. Wolinsky FD, Coe RM, Mosely RR, Homan SM. Veterans’ and nonveterans’ use of health services. A comparative analysis. Med Care. 1985;23:1358–1371.
