Top

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

vorige artikel Preference values associated with stage III col...

volgende artikel Creating and using the CDC HRQOL healthy days i...

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

01-04-2010 | Uitgave 3/2010

Initial development of the Temporary Utilities Index: a multiattribute system for classifying the functional health impact of diagnostic testing

Tijdschrift:: Quality of Life Research > Uitgave 3/2010

Auteurs:: J. Shannon Swan, Jun Ying, James Stahl, Chung Yin Kong, Beverly Moy, Jessica Roy, Elkan Halpern

» Toegang tot de volledige tekst krijgen

Abstract

Purpose

The effects of testing and screening on quality of life may influence the future behavior of society, but have not been quantified. We derived a health classification and survey items for the morbidities of testing and screening, to be the foundation of a multiattribute utility instrument, the Temporary Utilities Index.

Methods

Seventy-six women ranked the importance of attributes of the testing process after breast biopsy. Seven survey items on the testing process were subsequently developed and assessed for clarity by a second group of 19 patients. The items cover attributes of mental and physical well-being before, during, and after testing. A survey panel of 164 subjects accessed online used the items to endorse expected and experienced effects of colon screening and mammography. They also endorsed items from a colorectal benefits and barriers scale, a risk perception scale, and EQ-5D, to utilize in the analyses of validity of the TUI items.

Results

Based on criteria from the literature and limited psychometric analysis, the items showed evidence of practicality, validity, and a strong association with barriers.

Conclusions

The TUI health classification and survey items show evidence of validity, and may inform economic analysis, once combined with utility weights.

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Hier inloggen

Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:

BSL Podotherapeut Totaal

Binnen de bundel kunt u gebruik maken van boeken, tijdschriften, e-learnings, web-tv's en uitlegvideo's. BSL Podotherapeut Totaal is overal toegankelijk; via uw PC, tablet of smartphone.

Meer informatie

Eckman, M. H., Steere, A. C., Kalish, R. A., & Pauker, S. G. (1997). Cost effectiveness of oral as compared with intravenous antibiotic therapy for patients with early Lyme disease or Lyme arthritis. New England Journal of Medicine, 337(5), 357–363. CrossRefPubMed

Eckman, M. H., Falk, R. H., & Pauker, S. G. (1998). Cost-effectiveness of therapies for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Archives of Internal Medicine, 158(15), 1669–1677. CrossRefPubMed

Johnston, J. A., Brill-Edwards, P., Ginsberg, J. S., Pauker, S. G., & Eckman, M. H. (2005). Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic low molecular weight heparin in pregnant women with a prior history of venous thromboembolism. American Journal of Medicine, 118(5), 503–514. CrossRefPubMed

Naglie, G., Krahn, M. D., Naimark, D., Redelmeier, D. A., & Detsky, A. S. (1997). Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 3—Estimating probabilities and utilities. Medical Decision Making, 17(2), 136–141. CrossRefPubMed

Hrung, J. M., Langlotz, C. P., Orel, S. G., Fox, K. R., Schnall, M. D., & Schwartz, J. S. (1999). Cost-effectiveness of MR imaging and core-needle biopsy in the preoperative work-up of suspicious breast lesions. Radiology, 213(1), 39–49. PubMed

Swan, J. S., Lawrence, W. F., & Roy, J. J. (2006). Process utility in breast biopsy. Medical Decision Making, 26(4), 347–359. CrossRefPubMed

Yin, D., Baum, R. A., Carpenter, J. P., Langlotz, C. P., & Pentecost, M. J. (1995). Cost-effectiveness of MR angiography in cases of limb-threatening peripheral vascular disease. Radiology, 194(3), 757–764. PubMed

Cullen, J., Schwartz, M. D., Lawrence, W. F., Selby, J. V., & Mandelblatt, J. S. (2004). Short-term impact of cancer prevention and screening activities on quality of life. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22(5), 943–952. CrossRefPubMed

Donaldson, C., & Shackley, P. (1997). Does “process utility” exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Social Science and Medicine, 44(5), 699–707. CrossRefPubMed

10.

Janz, N. K., Champion, V. L., & Strecher, V. J. (2002). The health belief model. In K. Glanz, B. Rimer, & F. Lewis (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 45–66). San Francisco: Jossy-Bass.

11.

Barrett, K., & Legg, J. (2005). Demographic and health factors associated with mammography utilization. American Journal of Health Promotion, 19(6), 401–405. PubMed

12.

Bull, A. R., & Campbell, M. J. (1991). Assessment of the psychological impact of a breast screening programme. British Journal of Radiology, 64(762), 510–515. CrossRefPubMed

13.

Absetz, P., Aro, A. R., & Sutton, S. R. (2003). Experience with breast cancer, pre-screening perceived susceptibility and the psychological impact of screening. Psychooncology, 12(4), 305–318. CrossRefPubMed

14.

Currence, B. V., Pisano, E. D., Earp, J. A., Moore, A., Chiu, Y. F., Brown, M. E., et al. (2003). Does biopsy, aspiration or six-month follow-up of a false-positive mammogram reduce future screening or have large psychosocial effects? Academic Radiology, 10(11), 1257–1266. CrossRefPubMed

15.

Chappy, S. L. (2004). Women’s experience with breast biopsy. AORN, 80(5), 885–901. CrossRef

16.

Maxwell, J. R., Bugbee, M. E., Wellisch, D., Shalmon, A., Sayre, J., & Bassett, L. W. (2000). Imaging-guided core needle biopsy of the breast: Study of psychological outcomes. Breast Journal, 6(1), 53–61. CrossRefPubMed

17.

Visser, K., Bosch, J., & Hunink, M. (2002). Should patients’ preferences for diagnostic tests be considered in cost-effectiveness analyses? Medical Decision Making, 22(6), 541. (abst).

18.

Swan, J. S., Fryback, D. G., Lawrence, W. F., Sainfort, F., Hagenauer, M. E., & Heisey, D. M. (2000). A time-tradeoff method for cost-effectiveness models applied to radiology. Medical Decision Making, 20(1), 79–88. CrossRefPubMed

19.

Swan, J. S., Sainfort, F., Lawrence, W. F., Kuruchittham, V., Kongnakorn, T., & Heisey, D. M. (2003). Process utility for imaging in cerebrovascular disease. Academic Radiology, 10(3), 266–274. CrossRefPubMed

20.

Obuchowski, N. A., Lieber, M. L., Magdenic, M., Modic, M. T., Ruggieri, P. M., & Masaryk, T. J. (1999). Small but quantifiable patient preference for MRA versus catheter angiography. Stroke, 30(10), 2247–2248. PubMed

21.

Dominitz, J. A., & Provenzale, D. (1997). Patient preferences and quality of life associated with colorectal cancer screening. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 92(12), 2171–2178. PubMed

22.

Liang, W., Lawrence, W. F., Burnett, C. B., Hwang, Y. T., Freedman, M., Trock, B. J., et al. (2003). Acceptability of diagnostic tests for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 79(2), 199–206. CrossRefPubMed

23.

Seeff, L. C., Nadel, M., Blackman, D., & Pollack, L. A. (2003). Colorectal cancer test use among persons aged >50 years—USA, 2001. MMWR, 52(10), 193–196.

24.

Angtuaco, T. L., Banaad-Omiotek, G. D., & Howden, C. W. (2001). Differing attitudes toward virtual and conventional colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening: Surveys among primary care physicians and potential patients. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 96(3), 887–893. CrossRefPubMed

25.

Joseph, D. A., & Seeff, L. C. (2008). Use of colorectal cancer tests, USA, 2002, 2004, 2006. MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report, 57(10), 253–258.

26.

Elwood, J. M., Ali, G., Schlup, M. M., McNoe, B., Barbezat, G. O., North, F., et al. (1995). Flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy for colorectal screening: A randomized trial of performance and acceptability. Cancer Detection and Prevention, 19(4), 337–347. PubMed

27.

Furlong, W. J., Feeny, D. H., Torrance, G. W., & Barr, R. D. (2001). The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 375–384. CrossRefPubMed

28.

Torrance, G. W., Boyle, M. H., & Horwood, S. P. (1982). Application of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Operations Research, 30(6), 1043–1069. CrossRefPubMed

29.

Brazier, J., & Deverill, M. (1999). A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics. Health Economics, 8(1), 41–51. CrossRefPubMed

30.

Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Barr, R. D., Torrance, G. W., Rosenbaum, P., & Weitzman, S. (1992). A comprehensive multiattribute system for classifying the health status of survivors of childhood cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 10(6), 923–928. PubMed

31.

Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Osborne, R. (1999). The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: A psychometric measure of health-related quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 8(3), 209–224. CrossRefPubMed

32.

Richardson, J., & Hawthorne, G. (1999). Difficulty with life and death: Methodological issues and results from the utility scaling of the ‘Assessment of Quality of Life’ (AQoL) instrument. Australian Studies in Health Services Administration, 86, 121–139.

33.

Feeny, D. (2002). Heath-status classification systems for summary measures of population health. In C. J. L. Murray, J. A. Salomon, C. D. Mathers, & A. D. Lopez (Eds.), Summary measures of population health: Concepts, ethics, measurement and applications (pp. 329–341). Geneva: World Health Organization.

34.

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

35.

Furlong, W., Feeny, D., Torrance, G. W., Goldsmith, C. H., DePauw, S., & Zhu, Z., et al. (1998). Multiplicative multi-attribute utility function for HUI3: A Technical Report: McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper 98-11.

36.

Rawl, S., Champion, V., Menon, D., Loehrer, P., Sr., Vance, G. H., & Skinner, C. S. (2001). Validation of scales to measure benefits and barriers to colorectal cancer screening. Journal of Psychological Oncology, 19(3/4), 47–63. CrossRef

37.

Park, E., Green, I., Rakowski, W., Ostroff, J., Perry, K., & Rigotti, N. (2007). Risk perceptions among participants of the national lung cancer screening trial. Paper presented at the annual meeting, society of behavioral medicine.

38.

Kind, P. (1996). The EuroQoL instrument: An index of health-related quality of life. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven.

39.

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. CrossRefPubMed

40.

Brazier, J., Usherwood, T., Harper, R., & Thomas, K. (1998). Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1115–1128. CrossRefPubMed

41.

Parkin, D., & Devlin, N. (2006). Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost-utility analysis? Health Economics, 15(7), 653–664. CrossRefPubMed

42.

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

43.

Torrance, G. W. (1986). Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. Journal of Health Economics, 5(1), 1–30. CrossRefPubMed

44.

Vehovar, V., Batagelj, Z., Manfreda, K. L., & Zaletel, M. (2002). Nonresponse in web surveys. In R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, & R. J. A. Little (Eds.), Survey nonresponse (pp. 229–242). New York: Wiley.

45.

Esfandyari, T., & Harewood, G. C. (2007). Value of a negative colonoscopy in patients with non-specific gastrointestinal symptoms. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 22(10), 1609–1614. CrossRefPubMed

46.

von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Structuring for decision analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

47.

Dolan, P. (2002). Modeling the relationship between the description and valuation of health states. In C. J. L. Murray, J. A. Salomon, C. D. Mathers, & A. D. Lopez (Eds.), Summary measures of population health: Concepts, ethics, measurement and applications (pp. 501–513). Geneva: World Health Organization.

48.

Palta, M., Chen, H.-Y., & Fryback, D. (2008). Error standard deviations of five health utility indexes across the range of health: Implications for assessing responsiveness. Paper presented at the Society for Medical Decision Making, Philadelphia, PA. Accessed 17 Feb 2009: http://smdm.confex.com/smdm/2008pa/webprogram/Paper4376.html.

49.

U.S. Census Bureau State and County Quick Facts—USA. (2008). Retrieved June 9, 2008, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html.

Titel: Initial development of the Temporary Utilities Index: a multiattribute system for classifying the functional health impact of diagnostic testing
Auteurs:: J. Shannon Swan
Jun Ying
James Stahl
Chung Yin Kong
Beverly Moy
Jessica Roy
Elkan Halpern
Publicatiedatum: 01-04-2010
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9587-7
Uitgeverij: Springer Netherlands
Tijdschrift: Quality of Life Research An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation - An Official Journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research
Uitgave 3/2010
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:

BSL Podotherapeut Totaal

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2010

Habitual physical activity and health-related quality of life in older adults: interactions between the amount and intensity of activity (the Nakanojo Study)

Socio-demographic and clinical determinants of quality of life in Chinese patients with schizophrenia: a prospective study

Assessing the use of health-related quality of life measures in the routine clinical care of lung-transplant patients

Relationship of quality of life to dispositional optimism, health locus of control and self-efficacy in older subjects living in different environments

Quality of life predicts one-year survival in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Are youth BMI and physical activity associated with better or worse than expected health-related quality of life in adulthood? The Physical Activity Longitudinal Study