Abstract
The objective of this study was to characterize the performance of an automated utility assessment instrument for measuring preferences for overall health. The study population consisted of 83 subjects recruited from the cafeteria of a large tertiary care hospital. We assessed utilities for current health relative to perfect health and death using the rating scale, time tradeoff and standard gamble metrics. To validate the instrument, we compared utilities with the General Health subscale of the SF-36 Health Survey instrument, satisfaction with current health, and degree of bother due to current health. We evaluated interview failure rate based on irrational orderings of two practice assessments (monocular and binocular blindness) or inability to complete the interview. As expected, utility for overall health was statistically significantly associated with the General Health subscale score and measures of satisfaction with current health and degree of bother. There is substantial variation in utilities among patients with similarly severe overall health, and substantial overlap in utilities among subjects with different levels of overall health. The failure rate in the study was acceptable (9.6%). Automated assessment of utility for overall health provides a feasible means for estimating individual preferences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Howard RA. Decision analysis. Applied decision theory. In: Hertz DB and Melese J, eds. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Operations Research. New York: Wiley-Interscience. 1966: 55–71.
Weinstein M, Fineberg H, et al. Clinical Decision Analysis. Philadelphia: Saunders. 1980.
Sox H, Blatt M, Higgins M, Marton K. Medical Decision Making, Boston: Butterworths. 1988.
sumner W, Nease R, Littenberg B. U-titer: A utility assessment tool. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, Washington, DC, 1991: 701–705.
Nease RF Jr, Kneeland T, O'Connor G, et al. Variation in patient utilities for outcomes of the management of chronic stable angina. Implications for clinical practice guidelines. JAMA 1995; 273: 1185–1190.
Zug K, Littenberg B, Baughman R et al. Assessing the preferences of patients with psoriasis. A quantitative, utility approach. Arch Derm 1995; 131: 561–568.
Nease R, Hynes L, Littenberg B, Tosteson A, Sumner W, Owens D. Variation in patient preferences for outcomes associated with the management of mild hypertension: Implications for practice guidelines. Abstracts of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Association for Health Services Research and Foundation for Health Services Research, San Diego, California, 1994: pg 25 (abstract).
Nease R, Birkmeyer J, Wong J, et al. Tailoring practice guidelines to the individual. The importance of patient-specific estimates of risk and benefit in elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circulation 1994; 90: I-91 (abstract).
Nease RF Jr, Owens DK. A method for estimating the cost-effectiveness of incorporating patient preferences into practice guidelines. Med Decis Making 1994; 14: 382–392.
Sanders G, Owens D, Padian N, Cardinalli A, Sullivan A, Nease R. A computer-based interview to identify HIV risk behaviors and to assess patient utilities for HIV-related health states. Washington DC: Hanley & Belfus, Inc. 1994: 20–24.
Gage B, Cardinalli A, Owens D. Cost-effectiveness of incorporating patient-specific utilities for the prevention of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Med decis Making 1994; 14: 431 (abstract).
Hynes L, Levine A, Littenberg B, Nease R. Development and comparison of two utility-based measures of regret. Med Decis Making 1994; 14: 433 (abstract).
Owens DK, Sox HC Jr. Medical decision making: probabilistic medical reasoning. In: Shortliffe EH, Perreault LE, Fagan LM, Wiederhold G, eds. Medical Informatics: Computer Applications in Health Care. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1990: 70–116.
Torrance GW. Social preferences for health states. An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Econ Planning 1976; 10: 129–136.
Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston: Nimrod Press, 1993.
Conover WJ. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. New York: Wiley, 1980.
Cuzick J. A Wilcoxon-type test for trend. Stat Med 1985; 4: 87–90.
Kneeland T, Nease R, Littenberg B. Results of a computerbased utility assessment tool in 244 patients. Med Decis Making 1993; 13: 390 (abstract).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nease, R.F., Tsai, R., Hynes, L.M. et al. Automated utility assessment of global health. Qual Life Res 5, 175–182 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00435983
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00435983