Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T09:20:35.934Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Validity of utilities of patients with esophageal cancer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2005

Peep F. M. Stalmeier ,
Angela G. E. M. de Boer ,
Mirjam A. G. Sprangers ,
Hanneke C. J. M. de Haes  and
Jan J. B. van Lanschot
Peep F. M. Stalmeier
Affiliation:
University Medical Centre Nijmegen
Angela G. E. M. de Boer
Affiliation:
Academic Medical Centre/University of Amsterdam
Mirjam A. G. Sprangers
Affiliation:
Academic Medical Centre/University of Amsterdam
Hanneke C. J. M. de Haes
Affiliation:
Academic Medical Centre/University of Amsterdam
Jan J. B. van Lanschot
Affiliation:
Academic Medical Centre/University of Amsterdam
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The convergent validity between utility assessment methods was assessed.

Methods: Investigated were patients with esophageal cancer treated surgically with curative intent. Patients were interviewed in a period from 3 to 12 months after surgical resection. Patients evaluated their actual health and seven other states. Visual analogue scale (VAS) and standard gamble (SG) utilities were obtained for the health states in an interview. Patients also indicated whether or not they preferred death to living in a health state (worse than dead [WTD] preferences).

Results: Fifty patients completed the interview. Convergent validity was excellent at the aggregate and individual level. However, the relation between VAS and SG differed strongly across individuals. On a scale from 0 (dead) to 100 (perfect health), SG scores were lower for patients with WTD preferences (mean difference d=35; p=.002); however, VAS scores did not vary by WTD preferences.

Conclusions: In general, there is good agreement between VAS and SG measures, although patients disagree about how the VAS and SG are related. The standard gamble varied by WTD preferences, however, the VAS did not.

Keywords

Utility assessmentEsophageal cancer
Type
RESEARCH REPORTS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , January 2005 , pp. 113 - 118
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

de Boer AGEM, Stalmeier PFM, Sprangers MAG, et al. 2002 Transhiatal vs extended transthoracic resection in oesophageal carcinoma: Patients' utilities and treatment preferences. Br J Cancer. 86: 851– 857.Google Scholar
Hulscher JBF, Van Sandick JW, De Boer AGEM, et al. 2002 Extended transthoracic resection compared with limited transhiatal resection for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia: Results of a randomized study. N Engl J Med. 347: 1662– 1669.Google Scholar
Krabbe PFM, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ. 1997 The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods. Soc Sci Med. 11: 1641– 1652.Google Scholar
O'Leary JF, Fairclough DL, Jankowski MK, et al. 1995, Comparison of time-tradeoff utilities and rating-scale values of cancer-patients and their relatives—evidence for a possible plateau relationship. Med Decis Making. 15: 132– 137.Google Scholar
Postulart D, Adang EMM. 2002 Response shift and adaptation in chronically ill patients. Med Decis Making. 20: 186– 193.Google Scholar
Rutten-van Molken MP, Bakker CH, van Doorslaer EK, et al. 1995 Methodological issues of patient utility measurement. Experience from two clinical trials. Med Care. 33: 922– 937.Google Scholar
Souchek J, Stacks JR, Brody B, et al. 2000 A trial for comparing methods for eliciting treatment preferences from men with advanced prostate cancer. Med Care. 38: 1040– 1050.Google Scholar
Torrance GW. 1976 Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Econ Plan Sci. 10: 129– 136.Google Scholar
Tsevat J, Goldman L, Lamas GA, et al. 1991 Functional status versus utilities in survivors of myocardial infarction. Med Care. 29: 1153– 1159.Google Scholar
Tsevat J, Sherman SN, McElwee JA, et al. 1999 The will to live among HIV-infected patients. Ann Intern Med. 131: 194– 198.Google Scholar
Yi M, Mrus J, Britto M, et al. 2001 The relationship between visual analogue scale scores and utilities for current health. Med Decis Making. 21: 526.Google Scholar