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

The Effect of Search Procedures on Utility Elicitations

Daniel J. Cher, MD

Mary K. Goldstein, MD, MS

Merlynn R. Bergen, PhD

Alan Garber, MD, PhD

Objective. Elicited preferences for health states vary among scaling methods, manners of describing health states, and other features of the elicitation process. The authors examined the effects of changing the search procedure for a subject's utility on mean utility values. Methods. A randomized controlled trial of two search procedures (titration and "ping-pong") using two otherwise identical computer programs that describe health states related to Gaucher's disease, then measuring subjects' preferences. Setting. Paid, healthy volunteers recruited from the community through advertisements. Re sults. The mean time tradeoff (TTO) and standard gamble (SG) utility values for life with severe anemia and splenomegaly and life with chronic bone pain from Gaucher's disease were between 0.10 and 0.15 higher with the titration search procedure than with the ping-pong procedure. Effects of the search procedure were additive with var iability due to scaling methods, resulting in mean differences in utility ratings for the same health state of as much as 0.28 among procedures and scaling methods. Effects of search procedures on utility values persisted on repeated testing at week 2 and week 3; there was no evidence of convergence to a single "true" utility value over time. Conclusions. The procedure used to search for subjects' utility values strongly influences the results of preference-assessment experiments. Effects of search pro cedures persist on repeated testing. The results suggest that utility values are heavily influenced by, if not created during, the process of elicitation. Thus, utility values elic ited using different search procedures may not be directly comparable. Key words: search procedures; utility elicitations; patient preferences; titration; ping-pong. (Med Decis Making 1998;18:76-83)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 18, No. 1, 76-83 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9801800115


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. Cucchiaro, J. T. Farrar, J. W. Guite, and Y. Li What Postoperative Outcomes Matter to Pediatric Patients? Anesth. Analg., May 1, 2006; 102(5): 1376 - 1382. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				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]

				D. Ashby and S.-B. Tan Where's the utility in Bayesian data-monitoring of clinical trials? Clinical Trials, June 1, 2005; 2(3): 197 - 208. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. M. Bravata, L. M. Nelson, A. M. Garber, and M. K. Goldstein Invariance and Inconsistency in Utility Ratings Med Decis Making, March 1, 2005; 25(2): 158 - 167. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. Hammerschmidt, H.-P. Zeitler, M. Gulich, and R. Leidl A Comparison of Different Strategies to Collect Standard Gamble Utilities Med Decis Making, October 1, 2004; 24(5): 493 - 503. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. M. C. van Osch, P. P. Wakker, W. B. van den Hout, and A. M. Stiggelbout Correcting Biases in Standard Gamble and Time Tradeoff Utilities Med Decis Making, October 1, 2004; 24(5): 511 - 517. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. J. Damschroder, J. Baron, J. C. Hershey, D. A. Asch, C. Jepson, and P. A. Ubel The Validity of Person Tradeoff Measurements: Randomized Trial of Computer Elicitation Versus Face-to-Face Interview Med Decis Making, March 1, 2004; 24(2): 170 - 180. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. B. Cantor Clinical Applications in the Decision Analysis Literature: (Comment on Keefer et al. 2004) Decision Analysis, March 1, 2004; 1(1): 23 - 25. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. Kartman, G. Gatz, and M. Johannesson Health State Utilities in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Patients with Heartburn: A Study in Germany and Sweden Med Decis Making, January 1, 2004; 24(1): 40 - 52. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T M Arnesen and O F Norheim Quantifying quality of life for economic analysis: time out for time trade off Med. Humanit., December 1, 2003; 29(2): 81 - 86. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. E Say and R. Thomson The importance of patient preferences in treatment decisions--challenges for doctors BMJ, September 6, 2003; 327(7414): 542 - 545. [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. I. Brunner, D. Maker, B. Grundland, N. L. Young, V. Blanchette, A-M. Stain, and B. M. Feldman Preference-Based Measurement of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL) in Children with Chronic Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSKDs) Med Decis Making, July 1, 2003; 23(4): 314 - 322. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. A. Lenert, A. Sturley, and M. Rupnow Toward Improved Methods for Measurement of Utility: Automated Repair of Errors in Elicitations Med Decis Making, January 1, 2003; 23(1): 67 - 75. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. R. Schackman, S. J. Goldie, K. A. Freedberg, E. Losina, J. Brazier, and M. C. Weinstein Comparison of Health State Utilities Using Community and Patient Preference Weights Derived from a Survey of Patients with HIV/AIDS Med Decis Making, February 1, 2002; 22(1): 27 - 38. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. A. Ubel, J. Baron, and D. A. Asch Preference for Equity As a Framing Effect Med Decis Making, May 1, 2001; 21(3): 180 - 189. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. F. M. Stalmeier, M. K. Goldstein, A. M. Holmes, L. Lenert, J. Miyamoto, A. M. Stiggelbout, G. W. Torrance, and J. Tsevat What Should Be Reported in a Methods Section on Utility Assessment? Med Decis Making, May 1, 2001; 21(3): 200 - 207. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. Sumner II and R. F. Nease Jr. Choice-Matching Preference Reversals in Health Outcome Assessments Med Decis Making, May 1, 2001; 21(3): 208 - 218. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. A. Lenert, C. D. Sherbourne, and V. Reyna Utility Elicitation Using Single-Item Questions Compared with a Computerized Interview Med Decis Making, April 1, 2001; 21(2): 97 - 104. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Postulart and E. M.M. Adang Response Shift and Adaptation in Chronically III Patients Med Decis Making, April 1, 2000; 20(2): 186 - 193. [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]

				P. F.M. Stalmeier and T. G.G. Bezembinder The Discrepancy between Risky and Riskless Utilities: A Matter of Framing? Med Decis Making, October 1, 1999; 19(4): 435 - 447. [Abstract] [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]

				D. A. Brand and A. S. Kliger Planning for a Kidney Transplant: Is My Doctor Listening? JAMA, August 18, 1999; 282(7): 691 - 694. [Full Text] [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]

				E. E. E. Van Wijck, J. L. Bosch, and M. G. M. Hunink Time-tradeoff Values and Standard-gamble Utilities Assessed during Telephone Interviews versus Face-to-face Interviews Med Decis Making, October 1, 1998; 18(4): 400 - 405. [Abstract] [PDF]