nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

01.12.2007 | Original Paper

Marker states and a health state prompt provide modest improvements in the reliability and validity of the standard gamble and rating scale in prostate cancer patients

verfasst von: Karen E. Bremner, George Tomlinson, Murray D. Krahn

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 10/2007

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the combined effect of marker states and a prompt on the reliability and validity of direct utility assessment.

Methods

In a structured interview, 141 prostate cancer (PC) patients provided rating scale (RS) and standard gamble (SG) utilities for their “own health” (RS−/SG−). Following self-completion of comparison instruments (two generic utility and one disease-specific psychometric), they answered a checklist of PC-related items (a prompt to consider self-health) and provided utilities for self-health and mild and severe PC marker states (RS+/SG+). The interview was repeated 5 weeks later, but without comparison instruments. Using Bayesian modeling, we computed and compared correlation coefficients to assess RS and SG test–retest reliability and validity and the effects of the prompt and marker states.

Results

RS and SG had acceptable test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients = 0.57–0.63). The prompt and marker states decreased the reliability of the RS by 0.01 (from 0.58 to 0.57) but increased the reliability of the SG by 0.05 (from 0.58 to 0.63). The probability that the reliability of the SG+ was greater than that of the SG− was very high (0.96). Correlations with comparison instruments were higher by 0.01–0.06 for RS+ vs RS−, and higher by 0.03–0.06 for SG+ vs SG−. The probabilities that the prompt and marker states improved validity ranged from 0.55 to 0.74 (RS), and from 0.61 to 0.70 (SG).

Conclusions

A self-health description prompt and marker states modestly improved the reliability and validity of direct utility elicitation.

Gold, M. R, Patrick, D. L, Torrance, G. W., Fryback, D. G., Hadorn, D. C., Kamlet, M. S. et al. (1996). Identifying and valuing outcomes. In M. R. Gold, J. E. Siegel, L. B. Russell & M. C. Weinstein (Eds.), Cost effectiveness in health and medicine (pp. 82–134). New York: Oxford University Press.

Neumann, P. J., Goldie, S. J., & Weinstein, M. C. (2000). Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annual Review of Public Health, 21, 587–611.PubMedCrossRef

Froberg, D. G., & Kane, R. L. (1989). Methodology for measuring health-state preferences-II: Scaling methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 42, 459–471.PubMedCrossRef

Feeny, D. H., Torrance, G. W., & Furlong, W. J. (1996). Health utilities index. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (2nd ed, pp. 239–252). Philadelphia: Lippincourt-Raven Publishers.

von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Torrance, G. W., Furlong, W., Feeny, D., & Boyle, M. (1995). Multi-attribute preference functions: Health utilities index. PharmacoEconomics, 7, 503–520.PubMed

Kaplan, R. M., Anderson, J. P., Wu, A. W., Mathews, C., Kozin, F., & Orenstein, D. (1989). The quality of well-being scale. Applications in AIDS, cystic fibrosis, and arthritis. Medical Care, 27, S27–S43.PubMedCrossRef

Saigal, C. S., Cornbein, J., Nease, R., & Litwin, M. S. (2001). Predictors of utilities for health states in early stage prostate cancer. Journal of Urology, 166, 942–946.PubMedCrossRef

Volk, R. J., Cantor, S. B., Cass, A. R., Spann, S. J., Weller, S. C., & Krahn, M. D. (2004). Preferences of husbands and wives for outcomes of prostate cancer screening and treatment. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19, 339–348.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Froberg, D. G., & Kane, R. L. (1989). Methodology for measuring health-state preferences-lll: population and context effects. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 42, 585–592.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Gabriel, S. E., Kneeland, T. S., Melton 3rd. L. J., Moncur, M. M., Ettinger, B., & Tosteson, A. A. (1999). Health-related quality of life in economic evaluations for osteoporosis: Whose values should we use?. Medical Decision Making, 19, 141–148.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Sackett, D. L., & Torrance, G. W. (1978). The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. Journal of Chronic Disease, 31, 697–704.CrossRef

13.

Polsky, D., Willke, R. J., Scott, K., Schulman, K. A., & Glick, H. A. (2001). A comparison of scoring weights for the EuroQol derived from patients and the general public. Health Economics, 10(1), 27–37.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Nease, R. F. J., Tsai, R., Hynes, L. M., & Littenberg, B. (1996). Automated utility assessment of global health. Quality of Life Research, 5, 175–182.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Chang, W. T., Collins, E. D., & Kerrigan, C. L. (2001). An Internet-based utility assessment of breast hypertrophy. Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, 108, 370–377.CrossRef

16.

Lenert, L. A., Sturly, A., & Watson, M. E. (2002) iMPACT3: Internet-based development and administration of utility elicitation protocols. Medical Decision Making, 22, 464–474.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Bremner, K. E., Chong, C. A. K. Y., Tomlinson, G., Alibhai, S. M. H., & Krahn, M. D. (2007). A review and meta-analysis of prostate cancer utilities. Medical Decision Making, 27, 288–298.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Fryback, D. G., & Lawrence, W. F. Jr. (1997). Dollars may not buy as many QALYs as we think: A problem with defining quality-of-life adjustments. Medical Decision Making, 17, 276–284.PubMedCrossRef

19.

King, J. T., Styn, M. A., Tsevat, J., & Roberts, M. S. (2003). “Perfect Health” versus “Disease Free”: The impact of anchor point choice on the measurement of preferences and the calculation of disease-specific disutilities. Medical Decision Making, 23, 212–225.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Torrance, G. W. (1987). Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. Journal of Chronic Disease, 40, 593–600.CrossRef

21.

Furlong, W., Feeny, D., Torrance, G. W., Barr, R., & Horsman, J. (1990). Guide to design and development of health-state utility instrumentation. CHEPA Working Paper Series #90-9. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: McMaster University.

22.

Bennett, K. J., Torrance, G. W., Goldsmith, C. H., & Tugwell, P. (1991). Methodologic challenges in the development of utility measures of health related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis. Controlled Clinical Trials, 12(suppl), 118–128.CrossRef

23.

Mohide, E. A., Torrance, G. W., Streiner, D. L., Pringle, D. M., & Gilbert, R. (1988). Measuring the well being of family caregivers using the time trade-off technique. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 41, 475–482.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Torrance, G., Keresteci, M. A., Casey, R. W., Rosner, A. J., Ryan, N., & Breton, M. C. (2004). Development and initial validation of a new preference-based disease-specific health-related quality of life instrument for erectile function. Quality of Life Research, 13, 349–359.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Lenert, L., & Kaplan, R. M. (2000). Validity and interpretation of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life. Medical Care, 38(9, Suppl II), II-138–II-50.

26.

Feeny, D., Blanchard, C. M., Mahon, J. L., Bourne, R., Rorabeck, C., Stitt, L., & Webster-Bogaert, S. (2004). The stability of utility scores: test–retest reliabilty and the interpretation of utility scores in elective total hip arthroplasty. Quality of Life Research, 13, 15–22.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Laupacis, A., Bourne, R., Rorabeck, C., Feeny, D., Wong, C., & Tugwell, P. (1993). Effect of elective total hip replacement upon health-related quality of life. Journal of Bone Joint Surgery, 75(11), 1619–1626.

28.

Bennett, K. J., Torrance, G. W., Boyle, M. H., Guscott, R., & Moran, L. A. (2000). Development and testing of a utility measure for major, unipolar depression (McSad). Quality of Life Research, 9(1), 109–120.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Puhan, M. A., Guyatt, G. H., Montori, V. M., Bhandari, M., Devereaux, P. J., Griffith, L., Goldstein, R., & Schünemann, H. J. (2005). The standard gamble demonstrated lower reliability than the feeling thermometer. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58, 458–465.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Schünemann, H. J., Griffith, L., Stubbing, D., Goldstein, R., & Guyatt, G. (2003). A clinical trial to evaluate the measurement properties of 2 direct preference instruments administered with and without marker states. Medical Decision Making, 23, 140–149.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Schünemann, H. J., Armstrong, D., Degl’innocenti, A., Wiklund, I., Fallone, C. A., Tanser, L., Van Zanten, S. V., Heels-Ansdell, D., El-Dika, S., Chiba, N., Barkun, A. N., Austin, P., & Guyatt, G. (2004). A randomized multicenter trial to evaluate simple utility elicitation techniques in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Medical Care, 42, 1132–1142.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Schünemann, H. J., Goldstein, R., Mador, M.J., McKim, D., Stahl, E., Griffith, L. E., Bayoumi, A. M., Austin, P., & Guyatt, G. (2006). Do clinical marker states improve the responsiveness and construct validity of the standard gamble and feeling thermometer: A randomized multi-center trial in patients with chronic respiratory disease. Quality of Life Research, 15, 1–14.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Bennett, K. J., Torrance, G. W., Moran, L. A., Smith, F., & Goldsmith, C. H. (1997). Health state utilities in knee replacement surgery: the development and evaluation of McKnee. Journal of Rheumatology, 24(9), 1796–1805.PubMed

34.

Drummond, M. F., O’Brien, B., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W. (1997). Chapter 6: Cost-utility analysis. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes (pp. 139–204). New York: Oxford University Press.

35.

Krahn, M. D., Mahoney, J. E., Eckman, M. H., Trachtenberg, J., Pauker, S. G., & Detsky, A. S. (1994). Screening for prostate cancer: a decision analytic view. JAMA, 272, 773–780.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Alibhai, S. M., Naglie, G., Nam, R., Trachtenberg, J., & Krahn, M. D. (2003). Do older men benefit from curative therapy of localized prostate cancer?. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 21(17), 3318–3327.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Krahn, M., Ritvo, P., Irvine, J., Tomlinson, G., Bezjak, A., Trachtenberg, J., et al. (2000). Construction of the Patient-Oriented Prostate Utility Scale (PORPUS): a multiattribute health state classification system for prostate cancer. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53, 920–930.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Krahn, M. D., Ritvo, P., Irvine, J., Tomlinson, G., Bremner, K. E., Bezjak, A., Trachtenberg, J., & Naglie, G. (2003). Patient and community preferences for outcomes in prostate cancer: Implications for clinical policy. Medical Care, 41, 153–164.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Ritvo, P., Irvine, J., Naglie, G., Tomlinson, G., Bezjak, A., Matthew, A., Trachtenberg, J., & Krahn, M. (2005). Reliability and validity of the PORPUS, a combined psychometric and utility-based quality-of-life instrument for prostate cancer. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58, 466–474.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Boyle, M., & Torrance, G. W. (1995). Multi-attribute health status classification systems: Health Utilities Index. PharmacoEconomics, 7, 490–502.PubMed

41.

Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., Denton, M., & Boyle, M. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 System. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Cella, D. F., Tulsky, D. S., Gray, G., Sarafian, B., Linn, E., Bonomi, A., et al. (1993). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: Development and validation of the general measure. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 11, 570–579.PubMed

43.

Esper, P., Mo, F., Chodak, G., Sinner, M., Cella, D., Pienta, K. J. (1997). Measuring quality of life in men with prostate cancer using the functional assessment of cancer therapy-prostate instrument. Urology, 50(6), 920–928.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Shavelson, R. I., & Web, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer. Newbury Park: Sage Publications Inc.

45.

Spiegelhalter, D. J., Thomas, A., Best, N. G., & Lunn, D. (2004). WinBUGS User Manual. Version 1.4.1.

46.

Brooks, S. P., & Gelman, A. (1998). Alternative methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 7, 434–455.CrossRef

47.

R Development Core Team (2006). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

48.

SPSS for Windows (2002) Release 11.5.0 ed. Chicago, Illinois: SPSS Inc.

49.

Krahn, M., Bremner, K. E., Tomlinson, G., Ritvo, P., Irvine, J., & Naglie, G. (2007). Responsiveness of disease-specific and generic utility instruments in prostate cancer patients. Quality of Life Research, 16, 509–522.PubMedCrossRef

50.

Schünnemann, H. J., Stahl, E., Austin, P., Akl, E., Armstrong, D., & Guyatt, G. H. (2004). A comparison of narrative and table formats for presenting hypothetical health states to patients with gastrointestinal or pulmonary disease. Medical Decision Making, 24, 53–60.CrossRef

51.

Hays, R. D., Anderson, R., & Revicki, D. (1993). Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2, 441–449.

52.

Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Katz, J. N., Wright, J. G. (2001). A taxonomy for responsiveness. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 54, 1204–1217.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Marker states and a health state prompt provide modest improvements in the reliability and validity of the standard gamble and rating scale in prostate cancer patients
verfasst von: Karen E. Bremner
George Tomlinson
Murray D. Krahn
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2007
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 10/2007
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9264-7

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Marker states and a health state prompt provide modest improvements in the reliability and validity of the standard gamble and rating scale in prostate cancer patients

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2007

Cluster analysis: a useful technique to identify elderly cardiac patients at risk for poor quality of life

The association between body mass index and health-related quality of life: data from CaMos, a stratified population study

Long-term health-related quality of life in survivors of meningococcal septic shock in childhood and their parents

Respondent satisfaction regarding SF-36 and EQ-5D, and patients’ perspectives concerning health outcome assessment within routine health care

Quality of life of adults with workplace exacerbation of asthma

Spontaneous reports of most distressing concerns in patients with inoperable lung cancer: at present, in retrospect and in comparison with EORTC-QLQ-C30+LC13