Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in:

01-04-2010

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

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 3/2010

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 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.
vorige artikel Preference values associated with stage III colon cancer and adjuvant chemotherapy
volgende artikel Creating and using the CDC HRQOL healthy days index with fixed option survey responses
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
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
2.
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
3.
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
4.
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
5.
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
6.
Swan, J. S., Lawrence, W. F., & Roy, J. J. (2006). Process utility in breast biopsy. Medical Decision Making, 26(4), 347–359.CrossRefPubMed
7.
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
8.
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
9.
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.
49.
Metagegevens
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
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 3/2010
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9587-7

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2010

Preference values associated with stage III colon cancer and adjuvant chemotherapy

Functional abdominal complaints in pre-school children: parental reports of health-related quality of life

  • Open Access

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

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

  • Brief Communication

Creating and using the CDC HRQOL healthy days index with fixed option survey responses

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