Background.The application of the time tradeoff (TTO) method in temporary health states may lead to less valid results because an unrealistic scenario is presented to patients. The chained TTO has been proposed to solve this problem. Objectives.To compare a chained TTO method with a conventional TTO method in the valuation of temporary health states, in terms of consistency and reliability. To compare both TTO methods with direct rating.Patients and Methods. Eighty-four patients treated with oral anticoagulants were interviewed twice. During the 1st interview, values for 5 temporary health states were obtained with a rank ordering procedure, direct rating, and the chained TTO method. During the 2nd interview, either the 1st interview was repeated (n = 30) or health state values were obtained with the conventional TTO method (n = 54). Consistency was assessed by comparing the 3 valuation methods with the rank ordering procedure. Generalizability theory was used to assess reliability.Results. The 3 methods produced significantly different valuations of health states. Chained TTO values were higher than values obtained with direct rating and the conventional TTO. Consistency and reliability did not differ across the 3 methods. Conclusion.The authors found no evidence for a difference in consistency and reliability between the chained TTO method and the conventional TTO method in the valuation of temporary health states. As direct rating is simpler to administer than both TTO methods, one could consider using direct ratings for the valuation of temporary health states. Biases associated with the conventional and the chained TTO method are discussed.
1. Hall J, Gerard K, Salkeld G, Richardson J. A cost-utility analysis of mammography screening in Australia. Soc Sci Med.1992;34:993-1004.
2.
2. Gage BF, Cardinalli AB, Owens DK. The effect of stroke and stroke prophylaxis with aspirin or warfarin on quality of life. Arch Intern Med.1996;156:1829-1836.
3.
3. Merlino LA, Bagchi I, Taylor TN, et al.Preferences for fractures and other glucocorticoid-associated adverse effects among rheumatoid arthritis patients. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:122-132.
4.
4. Swan JS, Fryback DG, Lawrence WF, Sainfort F, Hagenauer ME, Heisey DM. A time-tradeoff method for cost-effectiveness models applied to radiology. Med Decis Making. 2000;20:79-88.
5.
5. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ.1986;5:1-30.
6.
6. Cook J, Richardson J, Street A. A cost utility analysis of treatment options for gallstone disease: methodological issues and results. Health Econ.1994;3:157-168.
7.
7. Jansen SJT, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP, et al.Unstable preferences: a shift in valuation or an effect of the elicitation procedure?Med Decis Making. 2000;20:62-71.
8.
8. Johnston K, Brown J, Gerard K, O’Hanlon M, Morton A. Valuing temporary and chronic health states associated with breast screening. Soc Sci Med.1998;47:213-222.
9.
9. Verhoef LCG. The measurement of individual preferences for treatment outcomes in breast cancer [thesis]. Nijmegen (the Netherlands): Universiteitsdrukkerij Nijmegen; 1994.
10.
10. Morrison GC, Neilson A, Malek M. Improving the sensitivity of the time trade-off method: results of an experiment using chained TTO questions. Health Care Manag Sci.2002;5:53-61.
11.
11. Stalmeier PFM.Discrepancies between chained and classic utilities induced by anchoring with occasional adjustments. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:53-64.
12.
12. Schulz MW, Chen J, Woo HH, Keech M, Watson ME, Davey PJ. A comparison of techniques for eliciting patient preferences in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol.2002;168:155-159.
13.
13. EuroQol Group. EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199-208.
14.
14. Unic I, Stalmeier PFM, Verhoef LCG, van Daal WAJ. Assessment of the time-tradeoff values for prophylactic mastectomy of women with a suspected genetic predisposition to breast cancer. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:268-277.
15.
15. Cardinet J, Tourneur Y, Allal L. Extension of generalizability theory and its application in educational measurement. Journal of Education Measurement. 1981;4:183-204.
16.
16. Searle SR, Casella G, McCulloch CE. Variance Components. New York: John Wiley; 1992.
17.
17. Van Agt HME, Essink-Bot ML, Krabbe PFM, Bonsel GJ. Test-retest reliability of health state valuations collected with the EuroQol questionnaire. Soc Sci Med.1994;39:1537-1544.
18.
18. Krabbe PFM, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ. On the equivalence of collectively and individually collected responses: standard-gamble and time-tradeoff judgments of health states. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:120-132.
19.
19. Krabbe PFM, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ. The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods. Soc Sci Med.1997;45:1641-1652.
20.
20. Badia X, Monserrat S, Roset M, Herdman M. Feasibility, consistency and test-retest reliability of scaling methods for health states: the visual analogue scale and the time trade-off. Qual Life Res.1999;8:303-310.
21.
21. Shiell A, Hawe P, Fletcher M. Reliability of health utility measures and a test of values clarification. Soc Sci Med.2003;56:1531-1541.
22.
22. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in Health Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
23.
23. O’Connor AM. Effects of framing and level of probability on patients’ preferences for cancer chemotherapy. J Clin Epidemiol.1989;42:119-126.
24.
24. Rutten-van Mölken MP, Bakker CH, van Doorslaer EK, van der Linden S. Methodological issues of patient utility measurement: experience from two clinical trials. Med Care. 1995;33:922-937.
25.
25. Dolan P, Roberts J. To what extent can we explain time trade-off values from other information about respondents?Soc Sci Med.2002;54:919-929.
