Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring preferences for schizophrenia outcomes with the time tradeoff method

  • Regular Articles
  • Published:
The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Measuring preferences for schizophrenia outcomes facilitates meaningful integration of multiple outcome measures and multiple perspectives on treatment outcomes. The Time Tradeoff (TTO) technique, specifically developed for measuring health state preferences, is used widely in health research, but some evidence suggests that the TTO may work less well with schizophrenia than with other health conditions. This study tested the hypotheses that tailoring the time frame of the standard TTO to the course of schizophrenia and simplifying its presentation fromat would improve its feasibility and efficiency. Forty clinicians provided TTO ratings using 1 of 4 combinations of time frame and presentation format. Numeric ratings and quantitative and qualitative measures of feasibility showed that while participants preferred the simpler format, none of the alterations improved feasibility. Participants' ratings were prone to logical inconsistencies and participants found all 4 versions of the TTO confusing and poorly suited to the context of schizophrenia treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences, I: measurement strategies.Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1989;42:345–354.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences, II: scaling methods.Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1989;42:459–471.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences, III: population and context effects.Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1989;42:585–592.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences, IV: progress and a research agenda.Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1989;42:675–685.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gold MR, Patrick DL, Torrance GW, et al. Indentifying and valuing outcomes. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds.Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996:82–134.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kaplan RM, Revicki DA. Methods for assessing relative importance in preference based outcome measures.Quality of Life Research. 1993;2:467–475.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Shumway M, Battle C. Clinicians' preferences for schizophrenia outcomes: a comparison of four methods.Schizophrenia Research. 1995;15:197.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Revicki D, Shakespeare A, Kind P. Preferences for schizophrenia-related health states: a comparison of patients, caregivers, and psychiatrists.International Clinical Psychopharmacology. 1996;11:101–108.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chouinard G, Albright P. Economic and health state utility determinations for schizophrenic patients treated with risperidone or haloperidol.Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology. 1997;17:298–307.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Shumway M, Chouljian T, Battle C. Stakeholder preferences for schizophrenia outcomes: an evaluation of assessment methods.Schizophrenia Research. 1997;24:258.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Awad AG, Voruganti LP. Cost-utility analysis in schizophrenia.Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 1999;60(suppl 3):22–26.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lee TT, Ziegler JK, Sommi R, et al. Comparison of preferences for health outcomes in schizophrenia among stakeholder groups.Journal of Psychiatric Research. 2000;34:201–210.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lenert LA, Ziegler J, Lee T, et al. Differences in health values among patients, family members, and providers for outcomes in schizophrenia.Medical Care. 2000;38:1001–1021.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Shumway M. Preference weights for cost-outcome analyses of schizophrenia treatments: comparison of four stakeholder groups.Schizophrenia Bulletin. 2003;29:257–266.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs.Health Services Research. 1972;7:118–133.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life.Journal of Chronic Disease. 1987;40:593–600.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mohide EA, Torrance GW, Streiner DL, et al. Measuring the wellbeing of family caregivers using the time trade-off technique.Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1988;41:475–482.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Shumway M, Sentell T, Chouljian T, et al. Assessing preferences for schizophrenia outcomes: comprehension and decision strategies in three assessment methods.Mental Health Services Research. 2003;5:121–135.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Giesler RB, Ashton CM, Brody B, et al. Assessing the performance of utility techniques in the absence of a gold standard.Medical Care. 1999;37:580–588.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jansen SJT, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP, et al. Patients' utilities for cancer treatments: a study of the chained procedure for the standard gamble and time tradeoff.Medical Decision Making. 1998;18:391–399.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Stavem K. Quality of life in epilepsy: comparison of four preference measures.Epilepsy Research. 1998;29:201–209.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Buckingham JK, Birdsall J, Douglas JG. Comparing three versions of the time tradeoff: time for a change?Medical Decision Making. 1996;16:335–347.

    Google Scholar 

  23. van Wijck EEE, Bosch JL, Hunink MGM. Time-tradeoff values and standard-gamble utilities assessed during telephone interviews versus face-to-face interviews.Medical Decision Making. 1998;18:400–405.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Committee on Quality Health Care in America, Institute of Medicine.Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Creswell JW.Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Tashakkori A, Teddlie C.Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative And Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Morse JM, Barrett M, Mayan M, Olson K, Spiers J. Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research.International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2002;1. Article 2. Available at: http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm/. Accessed July 17, 2002.

  28. Shumway M, Chouljian TL, Rozewicz F. Paraphrase procedures for assessing comprehension of health outcome measures: an illustration from schizophrenia research.Evaluation and the Health Professions. 2003;26:73–85.

    Google Scholar 

  29. National Center for Health Statistics.Vital Statistics of the United States, 1989. Vol. 2. Sec 6 life tables. Washington, DC: Public Health Service; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Chestnut LG, Keller LR, Lambert WE, et al. Measuring heart patients' willingness to pay for changes in angina symptoms.Medical Decision Making. 1996;16:65–77.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Klose T. The contingent evaluation method in health care.Health Policy. 1999;47:97–123.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lenert LA, Cher DJ, Goldstein MK, et al. The effect of search procedures on utility elicitations.Medical Decision Making. 1998;18:76–83.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lenert L, Sturley A, DiClemente R, et al. Trading time and risking life: what works for patients. Paper presented at: The Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making; October 20, 2002; Baltimore, Md.

  34. Fischer EP, Shumway M, Owen RR. Priorities of consumers, providers, and family members in the treatment of schizophrenia.Psychiatric Services. 2002;53:724–729.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry, UCSF/SFGH, 2727 Mariposa St, Suite 100, 94110, San Francisco, CA

    Martha Shumway PhD

  2. Family, and Child Counselor, Redwood City, Calif

    Tandy L. Chouljian MS (Licensed Marriage)

  3. the Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior at Brown University, Providence, RI

    Cynthia L. Battle PhD (assistant professor)

Authors
  1. Martha Shumway PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tandy L. Chouljian MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cynthia L. Battle PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martha Shumway PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shumway, M., Chouljian, T.L. & Battle, C.L. Measuring preferences for schizophrenia outcomes with the time tradeoff method. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 32, 14–26 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02287325

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02287325

Keywords

Search

Navigation