Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 2, Issue 6, pp 467–475 | Cite as

Methods for assessing relative importance in preference based outcome measures

  • R. M. Kaplan
  • D. Feeny
  • D. A. Revicki
Research Papers

Abstract

This paper reviews issues relevant to preference assessment for utility based measures of health-related quality of life. Cost/utility studies require a common measurement of health outcome, such as the quality adjusted life year (QALY). A key element in the QALY methodology is the measure of preference that estimates subjective health quality. Economists and psychologists differ on their preferred approach to preference measurement. Economists rely on utility assessment methods that formally consider economic trades. These methods include the standard gamble, time-trade off and person trade-off. However, some evidence suggests that many of the assumptions that underlie economic measurements of choice are open to challenge because human information processors do poorly at integrating complex probability information when making decisions that involve risk. Further, economic analysis assumes that choices accurately correspond to the way rational humans use information. Psychology experiments suggest that methods commonly used for economic analysis do not represent the underlying true preference continuum and some evidence supports the use of simple rating scales. More recent research by economists attempts integrated cognitive models, while contemporary research by psychologists considers economic models of choice. The review also suggests that difference in preference between different social groups tends to be small.

Key words

Decision making health-related quality of life preferences measurement QALY utility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Hypertension: A Policy Perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kamlet M. The Comparative Benefits Modeling Project. A Framework for Cost-Utility Analysis of Government Health Care Programs. Public Health Service; US Department of Health and Human Services, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guyatt GH, Feeny D, Patick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 1993; 118: 622–629.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): conceptual framework and items selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473–483.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wu AW, Rubin HR, Mathews WC, et al. A health status questionnaire using 30 items from the medical outcome study: preliminary validation in persons with early HIV disease. Med. Care 1991; 29; 786–798.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health state preferences I: Measurement strategies. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 345–352.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health state preferences II: Scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 459–471.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health state preferences III: Population and context effects. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 585–592.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health state preferences IV: Progress and a research agenda. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 675–685.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fanshel S, Bush JW. A health-status index and its applications to health-services outcomes. Operations Res 1970; 18: 1021–1066.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Torrance GW. Social preferences for health states. An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Economic Plan Sci 1976; 10: 129–136.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities in quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1989; 5: 559–575.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Feeny D, Torrance GW. Incorporating utility-based quality of life assessments in clinical trials: two examples. Med Care 1989; 27: S190-S204.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1944.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Raiffa H. Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choices Under Uncertainty. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1968.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bell DE, Farquhar PH. Perspectives on utility theory. Operations Res 1986; 34; 179–183.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Howard RA. Decision analysis: practice and promise. Manage Sci 1988; 34; 679–695.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bator FM. The simple analytics of welfare maximization. Am Econ Rev 1957; 47: 22–59.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Arrow KJ, Debreu G. Existence of equilibrium for a competitive economy. Econometrica 1954; 22: 265–290.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Arrow KJ. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: Wiley, 1951.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Keeney RL. A group preference axiomatization with cardinal utility. Manage Sci 1976; 23: 140–145.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaplan RM, Anderson JP. The general health policy model: an integrated approach. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life Assessments in Clinical Trials. New York: Raven Press, 1990: 131–149.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nord E. Methods for quality adjustment of life years. Soc Sci Med 1992; 34: 559–569.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Anderson NH. Contributions to Information Integration Theory, Vols 1–3. Hillsdale: Erlbaum Publishers, 1991.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mulley AJ. Assessing patient's utilities: can the ends justify the means? Med Care 1989; 27: S269-S281.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance GW, et al. Guide to design and development of health-state utility instrumentation. McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper No 90-9, June 1990.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Patrick DL, Bush JW, Chen MM. Methods for measuring levels of well-being for a health status index. Health Serv Res 1973; 228–245.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nord E. The validity of a visual analogue scale in determining social utility weights for health states. Int J Health Plan Management 1991.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Richardson J. Economic Assessment in Health Care: Theory and Practice. National Centre for Health Program Evaluation. Monash University: 1991.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stevens SS. A metric for the social consensus. Science 1966; 151: 530.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tversky A, Slovic P, Kahneman D. The causes of preference reversals. Am Econ Rev 1990; 80: 205–217.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    MacKeigan LD. Context effects in health state utility assessment: etiology, framing and delay of health outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Tucson: University of Arizona, 1990.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    McNeil BJ, Weischselbaum R, Pauker SG. Speech and survival: trade-offs between quality and quantity of life in laryngeal cancer. New Engl J Med 1981; 305: 982–987.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychol, 1983; 39: 341–350.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kaplan RM, Ernst JA. Do category rating scales produce biased preference weights for a health index? Med Care 1983; 21: 193–207.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kaplan RM, Bush JW, Berry CC. Health Status Index: category rating versus magnitude estimation for measuring levels of well-being. Med Care 1979; 17: 501–525.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zhu SH, Anderson NH. Self-estimation of weight parameter in multiattribute analysis. Organ Behav Hum Decis Processes 1991; 48: 36–54.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Luce RD. Axioms for the averaging and addition representations of functional measurement. Math Soc Sci 1981; 1: 139–144.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Torrance GW, Boyle MH, Horwood SP. Application of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Operations Res 1982; 30 1042–1069.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Krischer JP. The utility structure of a medical decision-making problem. Operations Res 1976; 24: 951–972.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Torrance GW, Yueming Z, Feeny D, et al. Multiattribute preference functions for a comprehensive health status classification system. McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper No 92-18; 1992.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Feeny D, Furlong W, Barr RD, et al. A comprehensive multi-attribute system for classifying the health status of survivors of childhood cancer. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10: 923–928.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Daniels N. Is the Oregon rationing plan fair? J Am Med Assoc 1991; 265: 2232–2235.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kaplan RM, Bush JW, Berry CC. The reliability, stability, and generalizability of a health status index. American Statistical Association, Proceedings of the Social Status Section 1978: 704–709.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Balaban DJ, Fagi PC, Goldfarb NI, et al. Weights for scoring the quality of well-being instrument among rheumatoid arthritics. Med Care 1986; 24: 973–980.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nerenz DR, Golob K, Trump DL. Preference weights for the quality of well-being scale as obtained from oncology patients. Unpublished paper, 1990; Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    EuroQol Group. EuroQol — a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16 December: 199–208.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kaplan RM. The Hippocratic Predicament: Affordibility, Access and Accountability in American Health Care. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kaplan RM, Bush JW, Berry CC. Health status: types of validity and the index of well-being. Health Serv Res 1976; 11: 478–507.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kaplan RM. Human preference measurement for health decisions and the evaluation of long-term care. In: Kane RL, Kane RA, eds. Values and Long-Term Care. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1982; 157–188.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Rapid Communications of Oxford Ltd 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. M. Kaplan
    • 1
  • D. Feeny
    • 2
  • D. A. Revicki
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of Health Care Sciences, Department of Family and Preventive MedicineUniversity of CaliforniaLa JollaUSA
  2. 2.McMaster UniversityCanada
  3. 3.Battelle InstituteUSA

Personalised recommendations