Purpose. To assess utilities of composite health states for dependence in activities of daily living (ADLs) for invariance (i.e., when subjects provide a utility of 1 for all health states) and order inconsistency (i.e., when subjects order their utilities such that their utility for a combination of ADL dependencies is greater than their utility for any subset of the combination).Methods. Each of the 400 subjects, age 65 y and older, enrolled in one of several regional medical centers of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program of Northern California and provided standard-gamble utilities for single ADL dependencies (e.g., bathing, dressing, continence) and for dependence in 8 other combinations of ADL dependencies. For order-inconsistent responses, the authors calculated the maximum magnitude of inconsistency as the maximum difference between the utility for the combined ADL dependence health state and that of its inconsistent subset.Results. A total of 76 subjects (19%) gave a utility of 1.0 for all health states presented to them; 19 (5%) gave the same utility other than 1.0 for all health states; 130 (33%) gave at least 1 utility < 1.0 and had no order inconsistencies; and 175 (44%) had at least 1 order inconsistency. Invariance was associated with a Mini-Mental Status Examination score < 28.6 (P = 0.01), with education < 12 y (P = 0.004), with race/ethnicity other than non-Hispanic White/Caucasian (P = 0.001), and with shorter time spent on the utility elicitation task (P < 0.0001). Among the inconsistent subjects, 69% had a maximal magnitude of inconsistency that was within 1 standard deviation of the mean utilities. The maximal magnitude of inconsistency was associated with longer time spent on the elicitation task (P < 0.0001) and race/ethnicity other than non-Hispanic White/Caucasian (P = 0.005). The mean (s) utility for dependence in continence among consistent subjects who were not invariant (0.88 [0.24]) was higher than among inconsistent subjects (0.80 [0.27]; P = 0.01).Conclusions. Invariance and order inconsistencies in utility ratings for complex health states occur frequently. Utilities of consistent subjects may differ from those of inconsistent subjects. Utility assessments should attempt to measure and report these patterns.
Badia X, Roset M, Herdman M. Inconsistent responses in three preference-elicitation methods for health states. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49:943-950.
2.
Lenert LA, Cher DJ, Goldstein MK, Bergen MR, Garber A. The effect of search procedures on utility elicitations. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:76-83.
3.
Lenert LA, Morss S, Goldstein MK, Bergen MR, Faustman WO, Garber AM. Measurement of the validity of utility elicitations performed by computerized interview. Med Care. 1997;35:915-920.
4.
Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences—IV: progress and a research agenda. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:675-685.
5.
Llewellyn-Thomas HA, McGreal MJ, Thiel EC. Cancer patients’ decision making and trial-entry preferences: the effects of “framing” information about short-term toxicity and long-term survival. Med Decis Making. 1995;15:4-12.
6.
Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinstein MC. Preferences for health outcomes: comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making. 1984;4:315-329.
7.
Eraker SA, Sox HC Jr.Assessment of patients’ preferences for therapeutic outcomes. Med Decis Making. 1981;1:29-39.
8.
Rutten-van Molken MP, Bakker CH, van Doorslaer EK, van der Linden S. Methodological issues of patient utility measurement. Experience from two clinical trials. Med Care. 1995;33:922-937.
9.
Lenert LA, Sturley A, Rupnow M. Toward improved methods for measurement of utility: automated repair of errors in elicitations. Med Decis Making. 2003;23:67-75.
10.
Giesler RB, Ashton CM, Brody B, et al.Assessing the performance of utility techniques in the absence of a gold standard. Med Care. 1999;37:580-588.
11.
Souchek J, Stacks JR, Brody B, et al.A trial for comparing methods for eliciting treatment preferences from men with advanced prostate cancer: results from the initial visit. Med Care. 2000;38:1040-1050.
12.
Gafni A.The standard gamble method: what is being measured and how it is interpreted. Health Serv Res. 1994;29:207-224.
13.
Nickerson CA. Assessing convergent validity of health-state utilities obtained using different scaling methods. Med Decis Making. 1999;19:487-498.
14.
Lenert LA, Treadwell JR. Effects on preferences of violations of procedural invariance. Med Decis Making. 1999;19:473-481.
15.
Goossens ME, Vlaeyen JW, Rutten-van Molken MP, van der Linden SM. Patient utilities in chronic musculoskeletal pain: how useful is the standard gamble method?Pain. 1999;80:365-375.
16.
Lee TT, Ziegler JK, Sommi R, Sugar C, Mahmoud R, Lenert LA. Comparison of preferences for health outcomes in schizophrenia among stakeholder groups. J Psychiatr Res. 2000;34:201-210.
17.
Lenert LA, Ziegler J, Lee T, Sommi R, Mahmoud R. Differences in health values among patients, family members, and providers for outcomes in schizophrenia. Med Care. 2000;38:1011-1021.
18.
Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Moncur M, Gabriel S, Tosteson AN. Assessing values for health: numeracy matters. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:382-390.
19.
Dolan P, Kind P. Inconsistency and health state valuations. Soc Sci Med. 1996;42:609-615.
20.
Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 1993.
21.
Patrick DL, Sittampalam Y, Somerville SM, Carter WB, Bergner M. A cross-cultural comparison of health status values. Am J Public Health. 1985;75:1402-1407.
22.
Sanders GD, Owens DK, Padian N, Cardinalli AB, Sullivan AN, Nease RF. A computer-based interview to identify HIV risk behaviors and to assess patient preferences for HIV-related health states. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1994:20-24.
23.
Wang Q, Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G, Barr R. How robust is the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 utility function?Med Decis Making. 2002;22:350-358.
24.
Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Barr RD, Zhang Y, Wang Q. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care. 1996;34:702-722.
25.
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.
26.
Katz S, Ford A, Moskowitz R, Jackson B, Jaffe M. Studies of illness in the aged: the index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA. 1963;185:94-99.
27.
McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. Vol. 1, 2nd ed.New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
28.
Goldstein MK, Miller DE, Davies S, Garber AM. Quality of life assessment software for computer-inexperienced older adults: multimedia utility elicitation for activities of daily living. Proc AMIA Symp. 2002:295-299.
29.
Goldstein MK, Tsevat J. Applying utility assessment at the “bed-side”. In: Chapman G, Sonnenberg FA, eds. Decision Making in Health Care: Theory, Psychology, and Applications. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 2000.
30.
Goldstein MK, Tsevat J. Assessing desirability of outcome states for medical decision making and cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Max M, Lynn J, eds. Symptom Research: Methods and Opportunities. Available from http://symptomresearch.nih.gov. National Institutes of Health; 2003.
31.
NLTCS. Limitations in Activities of Daily Living among the Elderly: Data Analyses from the 1989 National Long-Term Care Survey (HHS-100-95-0017). Washington (DC): Administration on Aging, US Department of Health and Human Services; May 31, 1996.
32.
Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J Health Econ. 1996;15:209-231.
33.
Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD, Stewart AL, Hays RD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473-483.
34.
Tsevat J, Cook EF, Green ML, et al.Health values of the seriously ill. SUPPORT investigators. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122:514-520.
35.
Tengs TO, Lin TH. A meta-analysis of quality-of-life estimates for stroke. Pharmacoeconomics. 2003;21:191-200.
36.
Tengs TO, Lin TH. A meta-analysis of utility estimates for HIV/AIDS. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:475-481.
37.
Tengs TO, Wallace A. One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care. 2000;38:583-637.
