Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 12/2017

11-08-2017

Feasibility, comparability, and reliability of the standard gamble compared with the rating scale and time trade-off techniques in Korean population

Auteurs: Seon-Ha Kim, Sang-il Lee, Min-Woo Jo

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 12/2017

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

The standard gamble (SG) method is the gold standard for valuing health states as a utility, although it is accepted that it is difficult to valuate health states. This study was conducted in order to compare the SG with the rating scale (RS) and time trade-off (TTO) techniques in terms of their feasibility, comparability, and reliability in a valuation survey of the general Korean population.

Methods

Five-hundred members of the general Korean population were recruited using a multi-stage quota sampling method in Seoul and its surrounding areas, Korea. Respondents evaluated 9 EQ-5D-5L health states using a visual analogue scale (VAS), SG, and TTO during a personal interview. Feasibility was assessed in aspects of the level of difficulty, administration time, and inconsistent responses. Comparability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Bland–Altman approach. Test–retest reliability was analyzed using the ICC.

Results

Of the three methods, VAS was the easiest and quickest method to respond. The SG method did not differ significantly compared to the TTO method in administration time as well as the level of difficulty. The SG and TTO values were highly correlated (r = 0.992), and the average mean difference between the SG and the TTO values was 0.034. The ICCs of the VAS, SG, and TTO scores were 0.906, 0.841, and 0.827, respectively.

Conclusions

This study suggests that the SG method compared with the VAS and TTO method was feasible and offered a reliable tool for population-based, health state valuation studies in Korea.
vorige artikel Selection of key health domains from PROMIS® for a generic preference-based scoring system
volgende artikel Comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and the SF-6D (SF-12) contemporaneous utility scores in patients with cardiovascular disease
Literatuur
1.
Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., & Williams, A. (1996). Valuing health states: A comparison of methods. Journal of Health Economics, 15(2), 209–231.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Weinstein, M., Siegel, J., Gold, M., Kamlet, M., & Russell, L. (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine (p. 55). New York: Oxford University.
3.
EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRef
4.
Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Torrance, G. W., Feeny, D. H., Furlong, W. J., Barr, R. D., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Q. (1996). Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Medical Care, 34(7), 702–722.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Torrance, G. W., O’Brien, B. J., & Stoddart, G. L. (Eds.). (2005). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
Wee, H. L., Li, S. C., Xie, F., Zhang, X. H., Luo, N., Feeny, D., et al. (2008). Validity, feasibility and acceptability of time trade-off and standard gamble assessments in health valuation studies: A study in a multiethnic Asian population in Singapore. Value in health, 11(Suppl 1), S3–S10.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Torrance, G. W. (1976). Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 10(3), 129–136.CrossRef
11.
Bleichrodt, H., & Johannesson, M. (1997). Standard gamble, time trade-off and rating scale: Experimental results on the ranking properties of QALYs. Journal of Health Economics, 16(2), 155–175.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Read, J. L., Quinn, R. J., Berwick, D. M., Fineberg, H. V., & Weinstein, M. C. (1984). Preferences for health outcomes. Comparison of assessment methods. Medical Decision Making, 4(3), 315–329.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Stiggelbout, A. M., Kiebert, G. M., Kievit, J., Leer, J. W., Stoter, G., & de Haes, J. C. (1994). Utility assessment in cancer patients: Adjustment of time tradeoff scores for the utility of life years and comparison with standard gamble scores. Medical Decision Making, 14(1), 82–90.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Torrance, G. W., Feeny, D., & Furlong, W. (2001). Visual analog scales: Do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Medical Decision Making, 21(4), 329–334.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Brooks, R., Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2003). The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: A European perspective. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRef
16.
Campbell, H., Rivero-Arias, O., Johnston, K., Gray, A., Fairbank, J., Frost, H., et al. (2006). Responsiveness of objective, disease-specific, and generic outcome measures in patients with chronic low back pain: An assessment for improving, stable, and deteriorating patients. Spine, 31(7), 815–822.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Gusi, N., Tomas-Carus, P., Hakkinen, A., Hakkinen, K., & Ortega-Alonso, A. (2006). Exercise in waist-high warm water decreases pain and improves health-related quality of life and strength in the lower extremities in women with fibromyalgia. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 55(1), 66–73.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Petrou, S., & Hockley, C. (2005). An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Economics, 14(11), 1169–1189.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Bharmal, M., & Thomas, J., 3rd. (2006). Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population. Value in Health, 9(4), 262–271.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Oppe, M., Devlin, N. J., van Hout, B., Krabbe, P. F., & de Charro, F. (2014). A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value in Health, 17(4), 445–453.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Ramos-Goni, J. M., Pinto-Prades, J. L., Oppe, M., Cabases, J. M., Serrano-Aguilar, P., & Rivero-Arias, O. (2014). Valuation and modeling of EQ-5D-5L health states using a hybrid approach. Medical Care.
22.
Klose, K., Graf von der Schulenburg, J., & Greiner, W. (2015). Valuation of the Eq-5d-5l with composite time trade-off for the German population. Value in Health, 18(7), A709.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Xie, F., Pullenayegum, E., Gaebel, K., Bansback, N., Bryan, S., Ohinmaa, A., et al. (2016). A time trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Medical Care, 54(1), 98–105.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Augustovski, F., Rey-Ares, L., Irazola, V., Garay, O. U., Gianneo, O., Fernandez, G., et al. (2016). An EQ-5D-5L value set based on Uruguayan population preferences. Quality of Life Research, 25(2), 323–333.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Kim, S. H., Ahn, J., Ock, M., Shin, S., Park, J., Luo, N., et al. (2016). The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Korea. Quality of Life Research, 25(7), 1845–1852.CrossRefPubMed
26.
EuroQoL group. EQ-5D-5L User Guide: Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument, version 1. 2011.
27.
Kim, S. H., Kim, H. J., Lee, S. I., & Jo, M. W. (2012). Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea. Quality of Life Research, 21(6), 1065–1073.CrossRefPubMed
28.
29.
30.
Torrance, G. W. (1986). Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. Journal of Health Economics, 5(1), 1–30.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Lamers, L. M. (2007). The transformation of utilities for health states worse than death: consequences for the estimation of EQ-5D value sets. Medical Care, 45(3), 238–244.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Badia, X., Roset, M., & Herdman, M. (1999). Inconsistent responses in three preference-elicitation methods for health states. Social Science & Medicine, 49(7), 943–950.CrossRef
34.
Tsuchiya, A., Ikeda, S., Ikegami, N., Nishimura, S., Sakai, I., Fukuda, T., et al. (2002). Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Economics, 11(4), 341–353.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Altman, D. G., & Bland, J. M. (1983). Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. The Statistician, 32, 307–317.CrossRef
36.
Shmueli, A. (2007). It might be premature to reject the assumption of a power curve relationship between VAS and SG data: three comments on Stevens, McCabe and Brazier’s ‘Mapping between VAS and SG data; results from the UK HUI Index 2 valuation survey’. Health Economics, 16(7), 755–758.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Badia, X., Monserrat, S., Roset, M., & Herdman, M. (1999). Feasibility, validity and test–retest reliability of scaling methods for health states: The visual analogue scale and the time trade-off. Quality of Life Research, 8(4), 303–310.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Patrick, D. L., Starks, H. E., Cain, K. C., Uhlmann, R. F., & Pearlman, R. A. (1994). Measuring preferences for health states worse than death. Medical Decision Making, 14(1), 9–18.CrossRefPubMed
39.
40.
Kind, P., Brooks, R., & Rabin, R. (2005). EQ-5D concepts and method. New York: Springer.CrossRef
41.
Froberg, D. G., & Kane, R. L. (1989). Methodology for measuring health-state preferences—II: Scaling methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 42(5), 459–471.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Neumann, P. J., Gillian, D. S., Louise, B. R., Joanna, E. S., & Theodore, G. G. (Eds.). (2016). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
43.
Martin, A. J., Glasziou, P., Simes, R., & Lumley, T. (2000). A comparison of standard gamble, time trade-off, and adjusted time trade-off scores. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 16(1), 137–147.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Morimoto, T., & Fukui, T. (2002). Utilities measured by rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble: review and reference for health care professionals. Journal of Epidemiology, 12(2), 160–178.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Lenert, L. A. (2000). The reliability and internal consistency of an Internet-capable computer program for measuring utilities. Quality of Life Research, 9(7), 811–817.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Juniper, E., Thompson, A., & Roberts, J. (2002). Can the standard gamble and rating scale be used to measure quality of life in rhinoconjunctivitis? Comparison with the RQLQ and SF-36. Allergy, 57(3), 201–206.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Juniper, E. F., Norman, G. R., Cox, F. M., & Roberts, J. N. (2001). Comparison of the standard gamble, rating scale, AQLQ and SF-36 for measuring quality of life in asthma. The European Respiratory Journal, 18(1), 38–44.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Bakker, C., Rutten, M., van Doorslaer, E., Bennett, K., & van der Linden, S. (1994). Feasibility of utility assessment by rating scale and standard gamble in patients with ankylosing spondylitis or fibromyalgia. The Journal of Rheumatology, 21(2), 269–274.PubMed
49.
Lee, Y., Nam, H., Chuang, L., Kim, K., Yang, H., Kwon, I., et al. (2009). South Korean time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states: Modeling with observed values for 101 health states. Value in Health, 12(8), 1187–1193.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Jo, M.W. (2005). Estimating quality weights for EQ-5D health states with time-trade-off method in South Korea. PhD thesis. University of Ulsan, Department of preventive medicine.
51.
Furlong, W., Feeny, D,,Torrance, G. W., Barr, R., & Horsman, J. (1990). Guide to design and development of health-state utility instrumentation. McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper No 90-9.
52.
Lenert, L. A., Cher, D. J., Goldstein, M. K., Bergen, M. R., & Garber, A. (1998). The effect of search procedures on utility elicitations. Medical Decision Making, 18, 76–83.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Hammerschmidt, T., Zeitler, H.-P., Gulich, M., & Leidl, R. (2004). A comparison of different strategies to collect standard gamble utilities. Medical Decision Making, 24, 493–503.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Witney, A. G., Treharne, G. J., Tavakoli, M., Lyons, A. C., Vincent, K., Scott, D. L., et al. (2006). The relationship of medical, demographic and psychosocial factors to direct and indirect health utility instruments in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology, 45(8), 975–981.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., & Williams, A. (1996). The time trade-off method: Results from a general population study. Health Economics, 5(2), 141–154.CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Feasibility, comparability, and reliability of the standard gamble compared with the rating scale and time trade-off techniques in Korean population
Auteurs
Seon-Ha Kim
Sang-il Lee
Min-Woo Jo
Publicatiedatum
11-08-2017
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 12/2017
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1676-4

Andere artikelen Uitgave 12/2017

Quality of Life Research 12/2017 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Social inequalities in children’s oral health-related quality of life: the Generation R Study

OriginalPaper

The role of dual diagnosis in health-related quality of life among treatment-seeking patients in Spain

OriginalPaper

Trajectories in quality of life of patients with a fracture of the distal radius or ankle using latent class analysis

OriginalPaper

Sample size determination for EQ-5D-5L value set studies

OriginalPaper

Association between chronic conditions and health-related quality of life: differences by level of urbanization in Peru

OriginalPaper

Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in psoriasis patients