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 4/2013

01-05-2013

Time trade-off and attitudes toward euthanasia: implications of using ‘death’ as an anchor in health state valuation

Auteurs: Liv A. Augestad, Kim Rand-Hendriksen, Knut Stavem, Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 4/2013

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

Health state values are by convention anchored to ‘perfect health’ and ‘death.’ Attitudes toward death may consequently influence the valuations. We used attitudes toward euthanasia (ATE) as a sub-construct for attitudes toward death. We compared the influence on values elicited with time trade-off (TTO), lead-time TTO (LT-TTO) and visual analogue scale (VAS).Since the ‘death’ anchor is most explicit in TTO, we hypothesized that TTO values would be most influenced by ATE.

Methods

Respondents valued eight EQ-5D health states with VAS, then TTO (n = 328) or LT-TTO (n = 484). We measured ATE on a scale from −2 (fully disagree) to 2 (fully agree) and used multiple linear regressions to predict VAS, TTO, and LT-TTO values by ATE, sex, age, and education.

Results

A one-point increase on the ATE scale predicted a mean TTO value change of −.113 and LT-TTO change of −.072. Demographic variables, but not ATE, predicted VAS values.

Conclusions

TTO appears to measure ATE in addition to preferences for health states. Different ways of incorporating death in the valuation may impact substantially on the resulting values. ‘Death’ is a metaphysically unknown concept, and implications of attitudes toward death should be investigated further to evaluate the appropriateness of using ‘death’ as an anchor.
vorige artikel Relative importance measures for reprioritization response shift
volgende artikel Prognostic value of quality of life measured after treatment on subsequent survival in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Drummond, M. F. (1997). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
Stein, K., Fry, A., Round, A., Milne, R., & Brazier, J. (2005). What value health?: A review of health state values used in early technology assessments for NICE. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 4(4), 219–228.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Räsänen, P., Roine, E., Sintonen, H., et al. (2006). Use of Quality-Adjusted Life Years for the Estimation of Effectiveness of Health Care: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 22(02), 235–241. Available at: [Accessed September 6, 2010].
4.
Williams, A. (1990). EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRef
5.
Szende, A., Oppe, M., Devlin, N. J., & Group E. (2006). EQ-5D value sets: Inventory, comparative review, and user guide. Berlin: Springer.
6.
Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Tsuchiya, A., Joshua, S., & Brazier, J. (2007). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
Krabbe, P. F., Essink-Bot, M. L., & Bonsel, G. J. (1997). The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods. Social Science and Medicine, 45(11), 1641–1652.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Szende, A., Oppe, M., & de Charro, F. (2007). Comparative review of time trade-off value sets. In A. Szende, M. Oppe, & N. Devlin (Eds.), EQ-5D Value Sets: inventory, comparative review, and user guide (pp. 21–28). Berlin: Springer.CrossRef
9.
Augustovski, F. A., Irazola, V. E., Velazquez, A. P., Gibbons, L., & Craig, B. M. (2009). Argentine valuation of the EQ-5D Health States. Value in Health, 12(4), 587–596.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Torrance, G. W., Thomas, W. H., & Sackett, D. L. (1972). A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Services Research, 7(2), 118.PubMed
11.
Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Shaw, J. W., Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (2005). US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Medical Care, 43(3), 203–220.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Chevalier, J., & Pouvourville, G. (2011). Valuing EQ-5D using Time Trade-Off in France. The European Journal of Health Economics. Accessed online, 21 September 2011.
14.
Wittrup-Jensen, K. U., Lauridsen, J., Gudex, C., & Pedersen, K. M. (2009). Generation of a Danish TTO value set for EQ-5D health states. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 37(5), 459–466.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Golicki, D., Jakubczyk, M., Niewada, M., Wrona, W., & Busschbach, J. J. (2010). Valuation of EQ-5D health states in Poland: First TTO-based social value set in central and Eastern Europe. Value in Health, 13(2), 289–297.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Dolan, P., & Roberts, J. (2002). To what extent can we explain time trade-off values from other information about respondents? Social Science and Medicine, 54(6), 919–929.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Dolan, P., & Jones-Lee, M. (1997). The time trade-off: a note on the effect of lifetime reallocation of consumption and discounting. Journal of Health Economics, 16(6), 731–739.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Attema, A. E., & Brouwer, W. B. F. (2010). The value of correcting values: influence and importance of correcting TTO scores for time preference. Value in Health, 13(8), 879–884.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Salomon, J. A., & Murray, C. J. L. (2004). A multi‐method approach to measuring health‐state valuations. Health Economics, 13(3), 281–290.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Stalmeier, P. F., Lamers, L. M., Busschbach, J. J., & Krabbe, P. F. (2007). On the assessment of preferences for health and duration: maximal endurable time and better than dead preferences. Medical Care, 45(9), 835.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Robinson, A., & Spencer, A. (2006). Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead. Health Economics, 15(4), 393–402.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Tilling, C., Devlin, N., Tsuchiya, A., & Buckingham, K. (2010). Protocols for time tradeoff valuations of health states worse than dead: A literature review. Medical Decision Making, 30(5), 610.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Stalmeier, P. F., Busschbach, J. J., Lamers, L. M., & Krabbe, P. F. (2005). The gap effect: Discontinuities of preferences around dead. Health Economics, 14(7), 679–685.PubMedCrossRef
24.
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.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Craig, B. M., & Busschbach, J. J. V. (2011). Revisiting United States valuation of EQ-5D states. Journal of Health Economics, 30(5), 1057–1063.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Augestad, L. A., Rand-Hendriksen, K., Kristiansen, I. S., & Stavem, K. (2012). Impact of transformation of negative values and regression models on differences between the UK and US EQ-5D TTO value sets. Pharmacoeconomics. (in press).
27.
Devlin, N. J., Tsuchiya, A., Buckingham, K., & Tilling, C. (2011). A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: feasibility study of the “lead time”approach. Health Economics, 20(3), 348–361.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Devlin, N. J., Hansen, P., & Selai, C. (2004). Understanding health state valuations: a qualitative analysis of respondents’ comments. Quality of Life Research, 13(7), 1265–1277.PubMedCrossRef
29.
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.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Dictionary MW. (2005). Merriam-webster online. Retrieved June. 2005.
31.
Schioldborg, P. (2000). Studenters holdninger til aktiv dodshjelp, assistert suicid og foreslatt lovendring. Tidsskrift for den Norske Laegeforening, 120(19), 2283–2288.PubMed
32.
Peterson, R. A. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. Journal of Consumer Research., 21(2), 381–391.CrossRef
33.
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.PubMedCrossRef
34.
35.
Wang, X. T., et al. (1996). Framing effects: Dynamics and task domains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 145–157.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Macran, S., & Kind, P. (2001). “Death” and the valuation of health-related quality of life. Medical Care, 39(3), 217–227.PubMedCrossRef
37.
38.
Flynn, T. N. (2010). Using conjoint analysis and choice experiments to estimate QALY values: Issues to consider. PharmacoEconomics, 28(9), 711–722.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Brazier, J., Rowen, D., Yang, Y., & Tsuchiya, A. (2011). Comparison of health state utility values derived using time trade-off, rank and discrete choice data anchored on the full health-dead scale. The European Journal of Health Economics. 1–13.
40.
Devins, G. M. (1980). Contributions of health and demographic status to death anxiety and attitudes toward voluntary passive euthanasia. OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying, 11(4), 293–302.CrossRef
41.
Suarez-Almazor, M., Belzile, M., & Bruera, E. (1997). Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: a comparative survey of physicians, terminally ill cancer patients, and the general population. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 15(2), 418–427.PubMed
42.
Worthen, L. T., & Yeatts, D. E. (2001). Assisted suicide: Factors affecting public attitudes. OMEGA–Journal of Death and Dying, 42(2), 115–136.CrossRef
43.
Lancsar, E., & Louviere, J. (2006). Deleting “irrational”responses from discrete choice experiments: A case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Economics, 15(8), 797–811.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Devlin, N. J., Hansen, P., Kind, P., & Williams, A. (2002). Logical inconsistencies in survey respondents’ health state valuations-a methodological challenge for estimating social tariffs. Health Economics, 12(7), 529–544.CrossRef
45.
Rand-Hendriksen, K., Augestad, L. A., Dahl, F. A., Kristiansen, I. S., & Stavem K. (2012). A shortcut to mean-based time tradeoff tariffs for the EQ-5D? Medical Decision Making.
46.
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(1), 76.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Time trade-off and attitudes toward euthanasia: implications of using ‘death’ as an anchor in health state valuation
Auteurs
Liv A. Augestad
Kim Rand-Hendriksen
Knut Stavem
Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen
Publicatiedatum
01-05-2013
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 4/2013
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0192-9

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2013

Quality of Life Research 4/2013 Naar de uitgave

Brief Communication

Activity limitation and participation restrictions of breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: psychometric properties and validation of the Chinese version of the WHODAS 2.0

OriginalPaper

Health-related quality of life among adults with work-related asthma in the United States

Brief Communication

Association of anthropometric measures with SF-36v2 PCS and MCS in a multi-ethnic Asian population

Original Paper

The Hunter Syndrome-Functional Outcomes for Clinical Understanding Scale (HS-FOCUS) Questionnaire: evaluation of measurement properties

OriginalPaper

Prognostic value of quality of life measured after treatment on subsequent survival in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma

OriginalPaper

Relative importance measures for reprioritization response shift