A Comparison of Different Strategies to Collect Standard Gamble Utilities

Abstract

Objective. The authors performed a methodological comparison of the usual standard gamble with methods that could also be used in mailed questionnaires.Methods.Ninety-two diabetic patients valued diabetes-related health states twice. In face-to-face interviews, the authors used an iterative standard gamble (ISG) in which the probabilities were varied in a ping-pong manner and a self-completion method (SC) with top-down titration as search procedure (SC-TD) in 2 independent subsamples of 46 patients. Three months later, all patients received a mailed questionnaire in which the authors used the self-completion method with bottom-up (SCBU) and SC-TD as search procedures.Results.ISG and SCTD showed feasibility and consistency in the interviews. The ISG resulted in significantly higher utilities than the SC-TD. Two thirds of the mailed questionnaires provided useful results indicating some problems of feasibility. Utilities measured by SC-BU and SC-TD did not differ significantly showing procedural invariance. Further, patients indicated ambivalence when given the choice not to definitely state their preferences.Conclusions.The results show that different strategies to collect standard gamble utilities can yield different results. Compared with the usually applied ISG, the SC method is feasible in interviews and provides a consistent alternative that is less costly when used in mailed questionnaires, although its practicability has to be improved in this later setting.

Keywords

utility assessment standard gamble methodology diabetes

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Brazier J , Deverill M , Green C , Harper R , Booth A. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(9):i–iv, 1–164.

2. Percy ME , Llewellyn-Thomas H.

Assessing preferences about the DNR order: does it depend on how you ask?

Med Decis Making. 1995;15:209–216.

3. Lenert LA , Cher DJ , Goldstein MK , Bergen MR , Garber A. The effect of search procedures on utility elicitations. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:76–83.

4. Dolan P , Gudex C , Kind P , Williams A. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J Health Econ. 1996;15:209–231.

5. Dolan P , Sutton M. Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:1519–1530.

6. Farquhar PH . Utility assessment methods. Manage Sci 1984;30: 1283–1293.

7. Torrance GW . Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ. 1986;5:1–30.

8. Von Neuman J , Morgenstern O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley; 1953.

9. Bosch JL , Hunink MG . The relationship between descriptive and valuational quality-of-life measures in patients with intermittent claudication. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:217–225.

10.

10. Flowers CR , Garber AM , Bergen MR , Lenert LA . Willingness to pay utility assessment: feasibility of use in normative patient decision support systems. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp. 1997:223–227.

11.

11. Van Wijck EEE , Bosch JL , Hunink MGM . Time-tradeoff values and standard-gamble utilities during telephone interviews versus face-to-face interviews. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:400–405.

12.

12. Froberg DG , Kane RL . Methodology for measuring health-state preferences—II: scalingmethods. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:459–471.

13.

13. Patrick D , Erickson P. Health Status and Health Policy. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 1993.

14.

14. Polsky D , Willke RJ , Scott K , Schulman KA , Glick HA . A comparison of scoring weights for the EuroQol derived from patients and the general public. Health Econ. 2001;10:27–37.

15.

15. Dolan P. Whose preferences count? Med Decis Making. 1999;19:482–486.

16.

16. Gudex C , Dolan P , Kind P , Williams A. Health state valuations from the general public using the visual analogue scale. Qual Life Res. 1996;5:521–531.

17.

17. Brazier J , Walters SJ , Nicholl JP , Kohler B. Using the SF-36 and Euroqol on an elderly population. Qual Life Res. 1996;5:195–204.

18.

18. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group . Quality of life in type 2 diabetic patients is affected by complications but not by intensive policies to improve blood glucose or blood pressure control (UKPDS 37). Diabetes Care. 1999;22:1125–1136.

19.

19. Gudex C. Standard Gamble User Manual: Props and Self Completion Methods. Occasional Paper Series. York (UK): Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 1994.

20.

20. Dawson-Saunders B , Trapp RG . Basic and Clinical Biostatistics. 2nd ed. Norwalk (CT): Appleton & Lange; 1994.

21.

21. McClave JT , Dietrich II FH . Statistics. 5th ed. San Francisco: Dellen; 1991.

22.

22. Belsley DA , Kuh E , Welsch RE . Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Source of Collinearity. New York: John Wiley; 1980.

23.

23. Greene WH . Econometric Analysis. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall; 1993.

24.

24. Statistisches Bundesamt [Federal Statistical Office of the Federal Republic of Germany]. Datenreport 1999 [Data report 1999; in German]. Bonn (Germany): Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung; 2000.

25.

25. Groot W. Adaptation and scale of reference bias in self assessments of quality of life. J Health Econ. 2000;19:403–420.

26.

26. Dubourg WR , Jones-Lee MW , Loomes G. Imprecise preferences and the WTP-WTA disparity. J Risk Uncertain. 1994;9:115–133.

27.

27. Opaluch JJ , Segerson K. Rational roots of “irrational” behavior: new theories of economic decision making. Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 1989;18:81–95.

28.

28. Ready RC , Whitehead JC , Blomquist GC . Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent. J Environ Econ Manage. 1995;29:181–196.

29.

29. Slovic P , Lichtenstein S. Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgement. Organ Behav Hum Perform. 1971;6:649–744.

30.

30. Carson RT , Haneman WM , Kopp RJ , et al. Referendum design and contingent valuation: the NOAA’s no-vote recommendation. Rev Econ Stat. 1998;80:484–487.

31.

31. Douzdjian V , Ferrara D , Silvestri G. Treatment strategies for insulin-dependent diabetics with ESRD: a cost-effectiveness decision analysis model. Am J Kidney Dis. 1998;31:794–802.

32.

32. Brown MM , Brown GC , Sharma S , Shah G. Utility values and diabetic retinopathy. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;128:324–330.