This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Llewellyn-Thomas, H. A. Articles by McGreal, M. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Llewellyn-Thomas, H. A. Articles by McGreal, M. J. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Cancer Patients' Evaluations of Their Current Health State

The influences of Expectations, Comparisons, Actual Health Status, and Mood

Elaine C. Thiel

M. June McGreal

A study was done to determine the extent to which patients' subjective evaluations of their current health are determined by their expectations, their actual health, and how they compare themselves with others. At the initiation of radiation therapy, 61 laryngeal cancer patients described the health status they expected at the end of therapy, using standardized and individualized dimensions. Objective summative scores were derived for these descriptions. At the end of therapy, these respondents described their current health status and the status they believed others their age were experiencing, on the same dimensions, and objective summative scores were derived for these actual and social comparison states Rating scales and standard gambles were used to obtain values and utilities ("subjective evaluations") for current health at the end of therapy. Multiple linear regression was used to determine the extent to which variation in the subjective evaluations was explained by the objective scores for actual, expected, and social comparison states, under these different methodologic con ditions Actual health state was a consistently significant predictor. Most variance was ex plained in the model using individualized dimensions and value scores (r² = 46 0%). Further investigation is needed to determine whether differences in the amounts of variance explained are due to aversion to gambling, dimension salience, order effects, or respondent fatigue Key Words. health status, health utilities, health values, prospect theory (Med Decis Making 1992;12:115-122)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 12, No. 2, 115-122 (1992)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9201200204


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Y. Peeters and A. M. Stiggelbout Valuing Health: Does Enriching a Scenario Lead to Higher Utilities? Med Decis Making, May 1, 2009; 29(3): 334 - 342. [Abstract] [PDF]

				O. Kostopoulou The Transient Nature of Utilities and Health Preferences Med Decis Making, July 1, 2006; 26(4): 304 - 306. [PDF]

				J. H. Goldberg Being There Is Important, but Getting There Matters Too: The Role of Path in the Valuation Process Med Decis Making, July 1, 2006; 26(4): 323 - 337. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. J. T. Jansen, J. Kievit, M. A. Nooij, and A. M. Stiggelbout Stability of Patients' Preferences for Chemotherapy: The Impact of Experience Med Decis Making, August 1, 2001; 21(4): 295 - 306. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. J.T. Jansen, A. M. Stiggelbout, P. P. Wakker, M. A. Nooij, E. M. Noordijk, and J. Kievit Unstable Preferences:: A Shift in Valuation or an Effect of the Elicitation Procedure? Med Decis Making, January 1, 2000; 20(1): 62 - 71. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. K. Goldstein, A. E. Clarke, D. Michelson, A. M. Garber, M. R. Bergen, and L. A. Lenert Developing and Testing a Multimedia Presentation of a Health-state Description Med Decis Making, October 1, 1994; 14(4): 336 - 344. [Abstract] [PDF]