Objectives: One of the explanations for the difference between health state utilities elicited from patients and the public—often provided but seldom studied—is adaptation. The influence of adaptation on utilities was investigated in patients with spinal cord injury. Methods: Interviews were held at 3 time points (T1, after admission to the rehabilitation center; T2, during active rehabilitation; T3, at least half a year after discharge). At T1, 60 patients were interviewed; 10 patients withdrew at T2 and T3. At all time points, patients were asked to value their own health and a health state description of rheumatoid arthritis on a time trade-off and a visual analogue scale. The Barthel Index, a measure of independence from help in activities of daily living, and the adjustment ladder were filled out. Main analyses were performed using mixed linear models taking the time-dependent covariates (Barthel Index and adjustment ladder) into account. Results: Time trade-off valuations for patients’ own health changed over time, even after correction for gain in independence from help in activities of daily living, F(2, 59) = 8.86, P < 0.001. This change was related to overall adaptation. Both a main effect for adaptation, F(87, 1) = 10.05; P = 0.002, and an interaction effect between adaptation and time, F(41, 1)= 4.10, P = 0.024, were seen for time trade-off valuations. Valuations given for one’s own health on the visual analogue scale did not significantly change over time, nor did the valuations for the hypothetical health state. Conclusion: Patients’ health state valuations change over time, over and above the change expected by the rehabilitation process, and this change is partly explained by adaptation. Experience with a chronic illness did not lead to change in valuations of hypothetical health states.
PeetersYStiggelboutAM. Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: a meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities. Value Health. 2010;13(2):306–9.
2.
DamschroderLJZikmund-FisherBJUbelPA. The impact of considering adaptation in health state valuation. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61(2):267–77.
3.
UbelPALoewensteinGJepsonC. Disability and sunshine: can hedonic predictions be improved by drawing attention to focusing illusions or emotional adaptation?J Exp Psychol Appl. 2005;11(2):111–23.
4.
RiisJLoewensteinGBaronJJepsonC. Ignorance of hedonic adaptation to hemodialysis: a study using ecological momentary assessment. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2005;134(1):3–9.
5.
FrederickSLoewensteinG. Hedonic adaptation. In: KahnemanDDienerESchwarzN. eds. Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1999. p 302–29.
6.
KnightSJEmanuelL. Processes of adjustment to end-of-life losses: a reintegration model. J Palliat Med. 2007;10(5):1190–8.
7.
UbelPALoewensteinGJepsonC. Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Qual Life Res. 2003;12(6):599–607.
8.
PostMWMvan DijkAJvan AsbeckFWASchrijversAJP. Life satisfaction of persons with spinal cord injury compared to a population group. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1998;30(1):23–30.
9.
PostMWde WitteLPvan AsbeckFWvan DijkAJSchrijversAJ. Predictors of health status and life satisfaction in spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79(4):395–401.
10.
LazarusRSFolkmanS. Stress, Appraisal and Coping. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 1984.
11.
FolkmanSMoskowitzJT. Positive affect and the other side of coping. Am Psychol. 2000;55(6):647–54.
12.
TedeschiRGCalhounLG. The posttraumatic growth inventory: measuring the positive legacy of trauma. J Trauma Stress. 1996;9(3):455–71.
13.
GilbertDTPinelECWilsonTDBlumbergSJWheatleyTP. Immune neglect: a source of durability bias in affective forecasting. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;75(3):617–38.
14.
JansenSJTJKievitNooijMAStiggelboutAM. Stability of patients’ preferences for chemotherapy: the impact of experience. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(4):295–306.
15.
DolanP. The effect of experience of illness on health state valuations. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(5):551–64.
16.
WilsonTDGilbertDT. Affective forecasting: knowing what to want. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2005;14(3):131–4.
17.
van KoppenhagenCFPostMWvanderWoudeLH. Recovery of life satisfaction in persons with spinal cord injury during inpatient rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;88(11):887–95.
18.
CollinCDavisSHorneVWadeDT. Reliability of the Barthel ADL Index. Int J Rehabil Res. 1987;10(3):356–7.
19.
CreweNMKrauseJS. An eleven-year follow-up of adjustment to spinal cord injury. Rehab Psychol. 1990;35(4):205–10.
20.
Centraal Bureau voor de statistiek. Overlevingstafels naar leeftijd en geslacht 2005. September15, 2007.
21.
PostMWvan AsbeckFWvan DijkAJSchrijversAJ. [Dutch interview version of the Barthel Index evaluated in patients with spinal cord injuries]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1995;139(27):1376–80.
22.
LuckeKTCocciaHGoodeJSLuckeJF. Quality of life in spinal cord injured individuals and their caregivers during the initial 6 months following rehabilitation. Qual Life Res. 2004;13(1):97–110.
23.
MortensonWBNoreauLMillerWC. The relationship between and predictors of quality of life after spinal cord injury at 3 and 15 months after discharge. Spinal Cord. 2010;48(1):73–9.
24.
DamschroderLJZikmund-FisherBJUbelPA. Considering adaptation in preference elicitations. Health Psychol. 2008;27(3):394–9.
25.
SalkeldGRyanMShortL. The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best?Health Econ. 2000;9(3):267–70.
26.
StiggelboutAMVogel-VoogtE. Health state utilities: a framework for studying the gap between the imagined and the real. Value Health. 2008;11(1):76–87.
27.
RobinsonADolanPWilliamsA. Valuing health status using VAS and TTO: what lies behind the numbers?Soc Sci Med. 1997;45(8):1289–97.
28.
StalmeierPFMLMLamersBusschbachJJVKrabbePFM. On the assessment of preferences for health and duration: maximal endurable time and better than dead preferences. Med Care. 2007;45(9):835–41.
