Background. Health economists recommend that when patients provide preference ratings of their own health state using utility and health state preference measures such as the feeling thermometer (FT) and standard gamble (SG), they first rate hypothetical health states (clinical marker states [CMS]). However, there is no evidence to support improvement in measurement properties with the use of CMS. The authors evaluated validity and responsiveness of the SG and FT with and without administration of the CMS. Methods. Respiratory rehabilitation improves health-related quality of life in patients with chronic airflow limitation. The authors randomized 84 patients undergoing pulmonary rehabilitation to administration of the FT and SG with (FT+ or SG+) or without (FT- or SG-) CMS before and after a standard 12-week respiratory rehabilitation program. Patients also completed the Health Utilities Index 3 (HUI3), the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ), and the St. George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) to evaluate longitudinal validity. Results. Marker state status did not significantly affect baseline scores on either FT or SG (FT+ 0.54, FT- 0.60, SG+ 0.68, SG- 0.66, on a scale from 0 [dead] to 1.0 [full health]). The improvement after the rehabilitation program was 0.14 (P < 0.001) in the FT+ group and 0.08 (P = 0.02) in the FT- group (difference between FT+ and FT- = 0.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.03 to 0.15, P = 0.17). The corresponding improvement was 0.12 (P = 0.009) in the SG+ group and 0.07 in the SG- group (P = 0.11) (difference between SG+ and SG- = 0.05; 95% CI = -0.07 to 0.17, P = 0.39). Correlations between change in the FT+ with the CRQ and SGRQ were slightly but not significantly lower than between the change in FT- and these 2 specific instruments. The correlations between change in the SG with the CRQ and the SGRQ were weaker in patients randomized to SG+ (from 0.00 to 0.17) compared to the SG- group (from 0.21 to 0.58). These differences were statistically significant for the CRQ domains of dyspnea and fatigue. Conclusion. The authors found nonsignificant trends toward superior responsiveness when patients rated hypothetical health states before rating their own health state. Although including hypothetical health states did not significantly influence the validity of the FT, it decreased the longitudinal validity of the SG. This study fails to show convincing advantage for use of marker states. Theoretical arguments in favor of marker states cannot stand alone without empirical support.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life . Ann Intern Med. 1993; 118: 622–9 .
2.
2. Patrick DL, Erickson P. Health Status and Health Policy: Quality of Life in Health Care Evaluation and Resource Allocation. New York: Oxford University Press ; 1993.
3.
3. Wennberg JE. Outcomes research, cost containment, and the fear of health care rationing . N Engl J Med. 1990; 323: 1202–4 .
4.
4. Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years . Int J Tech Ass Health Care. 1989; 5(4): 559–75 .
5.
5. Feeny DH, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW. Multiattribute health status classification system: Health Utilities Index . Pharmacoecon. 1995; 6: 490–502 .
6.
6. EuroQol Group. EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life . Health Pol. 1990; 16: 199–208 .
7.
7. Kaplan RM, Bush JW, Berry CC. Health status: types of validity and the index of well-being . Health Serv Res. 1976; 11: 478–507 .
8.
8. Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny DH, Boyle M. Multiattribute preferences functions: Health Utilities Index . Pharmacoecon. 1995; 6: 503–20 .
9.
9. Bennet KJ, Torrance GW. Measuring health state preferences and utilities: rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble techniques. In B Spilker editor. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven ; 1996. p. 259.
10.
10. Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C. The use of health status measures in economic evaluation. In: A Stevens, K Abrams, J Brazier, R Fitzpatrick, R Lilford, editors. The Advanced Handbook of Methods in Evidence Based Healthcare. London: Sage ; 2000. p. 195–214.
11.
11. Neumann PJ, Goldie SJ, Weinstein MC. Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care . Annu Rev Public Health. 2000; 21: 587–611 .
12.
12. Green C, Brazier J, Deverill M. Valuing health related quality of life: a review of health state valuation techniques . Pharmacoecon. 2000; 17: 151–65 .
13.
13. Fries JF, Ramey DR. “Arthritis specific” global health analog scales assess “generic” health related quality-of-life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis . J Rheumatol. 1997; 24: 1697–702 .
14.
14. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Griffith LE, Ferrie PJ. Minimum skills required by children to complete health-related quality of life instruments for asthma: comparison of measurement properties . Eur Respir J. 1996; 10: 2285–94 .
15.
15. Bakker C, Rutten M, Vansantenhoeufft M, Bolwijn P, Vandoorslaer E, Bennett K, et al. Patient utilities in fibromyalgia and the association with other outcome measures . J Rheumatol. 1995; 22: 1536–43 .
16.
16. Bennett KJ, Torrance GW, Moran LA, Smith F, Goldsmith CH. Health state utilities in knee replacement surgery: the development and evaluation of McKnee . J Rheumatol. 1997; 24: 1796–1805 .
17.
17. Bennett K, Torrance G, Tugwell P. Methodologic challenges in the development of utility measures of health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis . Contr Clin Trials. 1991; 12: 118S–28S .
18.
18. Mohide EA, Torrance GW, Streiner DL, Pringle DM, Gilbert R. Measuring the wellbeing of family caregivers using the time trade-off technique . J Clin Epidemiol. 1988; 41: 475–82 .
19.
19. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences: III. Population and context effects . J Clin Epidemiol. 1989; 42: 585–92 .
20.
20. Guyatt GH, Thompson PJ, Berman LB, Sullivan MJ, Townsend M, Jones NL, et al. How should we measure function in patients with chronic heart and lung disease? J Chron Dis. 1985; 38: 517–24 .
21.
21. Lacasse Y, Goldstein RS, Wong E, Guyatt GH, King K, Cook DJ. Meta-analysis of respiratory rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease . Lancet. 1996; 348: 1115–9 .
23. Guyatt GH, Berman LB, Townsend M, Pugsley SO, Chambers LW. A measure of quality of life for clinical trials in chronic lung disease . Thorax. 1987; 42: 773–8 .
24.
24. Guyatt GH, Townsend M, Keller J, Singer J, Nogradi S. Measuring functional status in chronic lung disease: conclusions from a randomized control trial . Resp Med. 1991; 85(Suppl. B): 17–21 .
25.
25. Jones PW, Quirk FH, Baveystock CM, Littlejohns P. A self-complete measure of health status for chronic airflow limitation: the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire . Am Rev Respir Dis. 1992; 145: 1321–7 .
26.
26. Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinstein MC. Preferences for health outcomes: comparisons of assessment methods . Med Decis Making. 1984; 4: 315–29 .
27.
27. Rutten-van Mölken MPMH, Bakker CH, Vandoorslaer EKA, VanderLinden S. Methodological issues of patient utility measurement: experience from 2 clinical-trials . Med Care. 1995; 33: 922–37 .
28.
28. Torrance GW. Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques . Socioecon Planning Sci. 1976; 10: 129–36 .
29.
29. Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs . Health Serv Res. 1972; 7: 118–33 .
30.
30. Dolan P, Gudex C. Time preference, duration and health state valuations . Health Econom. 1995; 4: 289–99 .
31.
31. Von interfeltd D, Edwards W. Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press ; 1986.
32.
32. Martin AJ, Glasziou PP, Simes RJ, Lumley T. A comparison of standard gamble, time trade-off and adjusted time trade-offs . Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000; 16: 137–47 .
33.
33. Feeny DH, Torrance GW, Labelle R. Integrating economic evaluations and quality of life assessments. In: B Spilker, editor. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven ; 1996. p. 90.
34.
34. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. 2nd ed. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press ; 1995.
35.
35. Guyatt GH. Making sense of quality-of-life data . Med Care. 2000; 38(Suppl.): 175–9 .
36.
36. Feeny D, Juniper EF, Ferrie PJ, Griffith LE, Guyatt GH. Why not just ask the kids? Health-related quality of life in children with asthma. In: D Drotar, editor. Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life in Children and Adolescents: Implications for Research, Practice, and Policy. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum ; 1998. p. 171–85.
