This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0272989X07309639v1 28/1/102    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted 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 ISI Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Dale, W. Articles by Meltzer, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Dale, W. Articles by Meltzer, D. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Prostate Cancer Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Predicting Utility Ratings for Joint Health States from Single Health States in Prostate Cancer: Empirical Testing of 3 Alternative Theories

University of Chicago, Department of Medicine, Section of Geriatrics, wdale{at}medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu.

Anirban Basu, PhD

Section of General Internal Medicine Chicago, Illinois

Arthur Elstein, PhD

University of Illinois-Chicago, Department of Medical Education

David Meltzer, MD, PhD

Section of General Internal Medicine Chicago, Illinois

Background. Cost-effectiveness analyses measure quality of life by associating utilities with specific health states. Utilities are often defined by single health states, such as incontinence or impotence in the case of prostate cancer treatments. Health conditions often occur simultaneously, yielding joint health states (e.g., impotence with incontinence). Given the combinatorial mathematics involved, even a small number of conditions can result in large numbers of potential joint states, complicating utility elicitation for all relevant states. Analytic predictions for joint-state utilities have been based on 3 theoretical models: 1) multiplicative, 2) additive, and 3) minimum models. These models' empirical accuracy for joint-state utility prediction has been minimally examined. The authors compared these 3 models for predicting joint-state utilities from single-state utilities in men at the time of prostate biopsies. Methods. Utilities were collected using time tradeoff in 2 university-based prostate biopsy clinics (N = 147). Single-state utilities were elicited for impotence, incontinence, watchful waiting, and post-prostatectomy. Joint-state utilities were elicited for states combining impotence with 1) incontinence, 2) postprostatectomy, or 3) watchful waiting. Testing 3 prediction models of joint-state utilities for bias and consistency, the predictions were compared against directly elicited joint-state utilities. Results. All 3 models are biased. The minimum model is preferred, being the least biased and most efficient. Conclusions. No current model accurately predicts joint-state utility using the component single-state utilities. When possible, joint-state utilities should be elicited. If not possible, the minimum model is recommended. Research to identify better models is needed.

Key Words: health states • joint states • utilities • prostate cancer • cost-effectiveness analysis • quality of life. (Med Decis Making 2008;28:102—112)

This version was published on January 1, 2008

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 28, No. 1, 102-112 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07309639


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