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 Goldstein, M. K. Articles by Lenert, L. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Goldstein, M. K. Articles by Lenert, L. A. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Developing and Testing a Multimedia Presentation of a Health-state Description

Ann E. Clarke

David Michelson

Alan M. Garber

Merlynn R. Bergen

Leslie A. Lenert

Quality-adjustment weights for health states are an essential component of cost-utility anal ysis (CUA). Quality-adjustment weights are obtained by presenting large numbers of subjects with multiattribute descriptions of health states for rating. Comprehending multiattribute health states is a difficult task for most respondents. The authors hypothesized that multimedia (MM) presentation using computers might facilitate this task better than would a paper-based text (Text). To test this hypothesis, they developed closely matched MM and Text descriptions of health states in the first-person narrative style, and developed a method of testing the presentation of a health state. Subjects were randomized to exposure to either MM or Text and subject recall of the health state and recognition of features of the health state were tested. How well defined the preferences of the subjects were after each presentation method was assessed by having the subjects mark on a double-anchored visual-analog scale the "best" and "worst" they believed the quality of life in the health state might be. MM subjects had better recall (11.85 vs 9.44 of a total of 24 meaning units, p = 0.098) and better recognition (4.71 vs 4.22, p = 0.08). The average interval between the "best" and "worst" ratings was shorter for the MM subjects (2.19 cm vs 3.26 cm, p = 0.12). The results suggest that: 1) MM presentation results in better recall and recognition, indicating better transfer of information; 2) MM presentation appears to result in better definition of preferences (a smaller preference interval), suggesting better integration of information into subject preference; and 3) recall and recognition testing of a health-state description can identify material in the description that has an unintended impact on the respondents. Key words: cost-utility analysis; communication medium; quality-adjustment weights; multimedia; health-state de scription. (Med Decis Making 1994;14:336-344)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 14, No. 4, 336-344 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9401400404


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. A. Lenert, A. Sturley, and M. E. Watson iMPACT3: Internet-Based Development and Administration of Utility Elicitation Protocols Med Decis Making, December 1, 2002; 22(6): 464 - 474. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. A. Lenert, J. Ziegler, T. Lee, C. Unfred, and R. Mahmoud The Risks of Multimedia Methods: Effects of Actor's Race and Gender onPreferences for Health States J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., March 1, 2000; 7(2): 177 - 185. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. A. Lenert and J. R. Treadwell Effects on Preferences of Violations of Procedural Invariance Med Decis Making, October 1, 1999; 19(4): 473 - 481. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. L. Bosch, J. K. Hammitt, M. C. Weinstein, and M. G.M. Hunink Estimating General-population Utilities Using One Binary-gamble Question per Respondent Med Decis Making, October 1, 1998; 18(4): 381 - 390. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. A. Lenert, D. J. Cher, M. K. Goldstein, M. R. Bergen, and A. Garber The Effect of Search Procedures on Utility Elicitations Med Decis Making, January 1, 1998; 18(1): 76 - 83. [Abstract] [PDF]