Comparison of Time-tradeoff Utilities and Rating Scale Values of Cancer Patients and Their Relatives

Abstract

Because they are easy to administer, rating scales are often used as proxies for utility measures. The authors investigated the relationship between time-tradeoff utilities and rating scale values in two populations: 124 cancer patients asked to evaluate their current states of health and 102 relatives and close friends of cancer patients asked to evaluate health- state scenarios. None of the models tested effectively described the relationship between individual patients' rating scale values and time-tradeoff utilities for their current states of health. In contrast, both a plateau and a power-function model explained the variability in the responses of the relatives reasonably well (R² = 0.56 and R² = 0.58, respectively). Given that many respondents who were unwilling to trade off any time assigned rating scale values of well below 100, a plateau model may represent the best approach to adjusting rating scale values for health-state scenarios when it is not feasible to elicit time-tradeoff utilities. Key words: time tradeoff; utility; rating scale; cancer; patient preferences; quality of life. (Med Decis Making 1995;15:132-137)

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Torrance GW Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Econ Plan Sci. 1976;10:129-36.

Wolfson AD Sinclair AJ , Bombardier C. , McGeer A. Preference measurements for functional status in stroke patients: interrater and intertechnique comparisons. In: Kane RL, Kane RA, eds. Values and Long-term Care. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1982

Read JL Quinn RJ , Berwick DM , Fineberg HV , Weinstein MC Preferences for health outcomes: comparison of assessment methods . Med Decis Making. 1984;4:315-29.

Hornberger JC , Redelmeier DA , Petersen J. Variability among methods to assess patients' well-being and consequent effect on a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:505-12.

Loomes G. Disparities between health state measures: is there a rational explanation? In: Gerrard W, ed. The Economics of Rationality. London, England: Routledge, 1993 .

Nord L. Methods for quality adjustment of life years. Soc Sci Med 1992;34:559-69.

Nord L. The validity of a visual analogue scale in determining social utility weights for health states. Int J Health Planning Manage. 1991;6:234-42.

Tsevat J. , Goldman L. , Soukup JR, et al. Functional status versus utilities in survivors of myocardial infarction . Med Care. 1991; 29:1153-9.

Spitzer WO , Dobson AJ , Hall J., et al. Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: a concise QL-index for use by physicians. J Chronic Dis. 1981;34:585-97.

10.

Furlong W. , Feeny D. , Torrance GW , Barr R. , Horsman J. Guide to design and development of health-state utility instrumentation. CHEPA Working Paper Series #90-9, June 1990.

11.

Oken MM , Creech RH , Tormey DC, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group . Am J Clin Oncol. 1982;5:649-55.

12.

Coates A. , Fisher Dillenbeck C. , McNeil DR, et al.

On the receiving end. II. Linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) in evaluation of aspects of the quality of life of cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol. 1983;19:1633-7.

13.

Coates A. , Glasziou P. , McNeil D.

On the receiving end. III. Measurement of quality of life during cancer chemotherapy

Ann Oncol. 1990;1:213-7.

14.

Hurny C. , Bernhard J. , Bacchi M., et al. The perceived adjustment to chronic illness scale (PACIS): a global indicator of coping for operable breast cancer patients in clinical trials. Support Care Cancer. 1993;1:200-8.

15.

Torrance GW Multiattribute utility theory as a method of measuring social preferences for health states. In: Kane RL, Kane RA, eds. Values and Long-term Care. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1982.

16.

Revicki DA Relationship between health utility and psychometric health status measures . Med Care. 1992;30:MS274-MS282.

17.

Jonsen A. Bentham in a box: technology assessment and health care allocation. Law Med Health Care. 1986;14:172-4.

18.

Hadorn DC Setting health care priorities in Oregon: cost-effectiveness analysis meets the rule of rescue. JAMA. 1991;265: 2218-25.

19.

Kaplan RM , Anderson JP

A general health policy model: update and applications

Health Serv Res. 1988;23:203-35.

20.

Nord E. Unjustified use of the quality of well-being scale in priority setting in Oregon. Health Policy. 1993;24:45-53.