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 Bass, E. B. Articles by Johns, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bass, E. B. Articles by Johns, C. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Comparison of the Rating Scale and the Standard Gamble in Measuring Patient Preferences for Outcomes of Gallstone Disease

Earl P. Steinberg

Henry A. Pitt

Robert I. Griffiths

Keith D. Lillemoe

George P. Saba

Christina Johns

To estimate patient preferences for gallstone-related treatments and outcomes, and assess how preferences vary by patient characteristics and scaling technique, the authors randomly assigned 40 patients without gallstones to interviews based on a rating scale (n = 22) and a standard gamble (n = 18). The patients assigned preference values (possible values 0 to 1) to open cholecystectomy (mean 0.45 by rating scale, 0.78 by standard gamble), laparoscopic cholecystectomy (0.71, 0.91), extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (0.77, 0.89), acute cholecystitis (0.36, 0.77), lifetime biliary colic (0.41, 0.71), postcholecystectomy syn drome (0.43, 0.79), asymptomatic stone necessitating treatment with bile acids (0.76, 0.96), and surgical scar (0.79, 0.998). Preferences varied little by age, gender, or race. Standard gamble values were highly correlated with, but significantly greater than, rating scale values. The authors conclude that patients' preferences for gallstone-related conditions generally are significantly less than one, and differ markedly by the scaling technique used to derive them. These results should be considered when patient preferences are incorporated into analyses of gallstone treatments. Key words: patient preference values; rating scale; stan dard gamble; gallstones; cholecystectomy; lithotripsy. (Med Decis Making 1994;14:307- 314)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 14, No. 4, 307-314 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9401400401


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. E. Bramlett, A. K. Bothe, and D. M. Franic Using preference-based measures to assess quality of life in stuttering. J Speech Lang Hear Res, April 1, 2006; 49(2): 381 - 394. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Secnik, L. S. Matza, S. Cottrell, E. Edgell, D. Tilden, and S. Mannix Health State Utilities for Childhood Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Based on Parent Preferences in the United Kingdom Med Decis Making, January 1, 2005; 25(1): 56 - 70. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. W. Torrance, D. Feeny, and W. Furlong Visual Analog Scales: Do They Have a Role in the Measurement of Preferences for Health States? Med Decis Making, August 1, 2001; 21(4): 329 - 334. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. A.E. Nickerson Assessing Convergent Validity of Health-state Utilities Obtained Using Different Scaling Methods Med Decis Making, October 1, 1999; 19(4): 487 - 498. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. C. Sorum Measuring Patient Preferences by Willingness to Pay to Avoid: The Case of Acute Otitis Media Med Decis Making, January 1, 1999; 19(1): 27 - 37. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. J.T. Jansen, A. M. Stiggelbout, P. P. Wakker, T. P.M. Vliet Vlieland, J.-W. H. Leer, M. A. Nooy, and J. Kievit Patients' Utilities for Cancer Treatments: A Study of the Chained Procedure for the Standard Gamble and Time Tradeoff Med Decis Making, October 1, 1998; 18(4): 391 - 399. [Abstract] [PDF]

				I. Unic, P. F.M. Stalmeier, L. C.G. Verhoef, and W. A.J. Van Daal Assessment of the Time-tradeoff Val ues for Prophylactic Mastectomy of Women with a Suspected Genetic Predisposition to Breast Cancer Med Decis Making, August 1, 1998; 18(3): 268 - 277. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. B. Bass, S. Wills, I. U. Scott, J. C. Javitt, J. M. Tielsch, O. D. Schein, and E. P. Steinberg Preference Values for Visual States in Patients Planning to Undergo Cataract Surgery Med Decis Making, July 1, 1997; 17(3): 324 - 330. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Kuppermann, S. Shiboski, D. Feeny, E. P. Elkin, and A. E. Washington Can Preference Scores for Discrete States Be Used to Derive Preference Scores for an Entire Path of Events?: An Application to Prenatal Diagnosis Med Decis Making, February 1, 1997; 17(1): 42 - 55. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. M. Coley, Y.-H. Li, A. R. Medsger, T. J. Marrie, M. J. Fine, W. N. Kapoor, J. R. Lave, A. S. Detsky, M. C. Weinstein, and D. E. Singer Preferences for Home vs Hospital Care Among Low-Risk Patients With Community-Acquired Pneumonia Arch Intern Med, July 22, 1996; 156(14): 1565 - 1571. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. R. Bowe Measuring Patient Preferences: Rating Scale versus Standard Gamble Med Decis Making, August 1, 1995; 15(3): 283 - 285. [PDF]