학제간연구 | Interdisciplinary Studies in Gambling | 跨学科研究
- date : 2015-05-20 01:10|hit : 1877
-
- Article] Health state utilities: A framework for studying the gap between the imagined and the real
-
DocNo of ILP: 4028
Doc. Type: Article
Title: Health state utilities: A framework for studying the gap between the imagined and the real
Authors: Stiggelbout, AM; de Vogel-Voogt, E
Full Name of Authors: Stiggelbout, Anne M.; de Vogel-Voogt, Elsbeth
Keywords by Author: adaptation; outcome; quality of life; utility assessment
Keywords Plus: QUALITY-OF-LIFE; TIME TRADE-OFF; STAGE BREAST-CANCER; RESPONSE-SHIFT; DECISION-MAKING; PATIENTS PREFERENCES; DISABILITY PARADOX; PROSTATE-CANCER; STANDARD GAMBLE; POSITIVE AFFECT
Abstract: Objectives: Health state utilities play an important role in decision analysis and cost-utility analysis. The question whose utilities to use at various levels of health-care decision-making has been subject of considerable debate. The observation that patients often value their own health, but also other health states, higher than members of the general public raises the question what underlies such differences? Is it an artifact of the valuation methods? Is it adaptation versus poor anticipated adaptation? This article describes a framework for the understanding and study of potential mechanisms that play a role in health state valuation. It aims at connecting research from within different fields so that cross-fertilization of ideas may occur. Methods: The framework is based on stimulus response models from social judgment theory. For each phase, from stimulus, through information interpretation and integration, to judgment, and, finally, to response, we provide evidence of factors and processes that may lead to different utilities in patients and healthy subjects. Results: Examples of factors and processes described are the lack of scope of scenarios in the stimulus phase, and appraisal processes and framing effects in the information interpretation phase. Factors that play a role in the judgment phase are, for example, heuristics and biases, adaptation, and comparison processes. Some mechanisms related to the response phase are end aversion bias, probability distortion, and non-compensatory decision-making. Conclusions: The framework serves to explain many of the differences in valuations between respondent groups. We discuss some of the findings as they relate to the field of response shift research. We propose issues for discussion in the field, and suggestions for improvement of the process of utility assessment.
Cate of OECD: Economics and business
Year of Publication: 2008
Business Area: other
Detail Business: medicine & science
Country: England
Study Area: culture, quality of life, utility, utility, Standardization, probability, probability, patient, preference, cancer
Name of Journal: VALUE IN HEALTH
Language: English
Country of Authors: [Stiggelbout, Anne M.; de Vogel-Voogt, Elsbeth] Leiden Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Med Decis Making, NL-2300 RC Leiden, Netherlands
Press Adress: Stiggelbout, AM (reprint author), Leiden Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Med Decis Making, POB 9600, NL-2300 RC Leiden, Netherlands.
Email Address: a.m.stiggelbout@lumc.nl
Citaion:
Funding:
Lists of Citation: Ahmed S, 2004, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V57, P561, DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.11.003; Albrecht GL, 1999, SOC SCI MED, V48, P977, DOI 10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00411-0; Blatt M., 1988, MED DECISION MAKING; Bleichrodt H, 2002, HEALTH ECON, V11, P447, DOI 10.1002/hec.688; Bleichrodt H, 1997, MED DECIS MAKING, V17, P208, DOI 10.1177/0272989X9701700212; Bleichrodt H, 2003, J HEALTH ECON, V22, P1037, DOI 10.1016/S0167-6296(03)00046-8; Broadstock M, 2000, PSYCHOL HEALTH, V15, P191, DOI 10.1080/08870440008400300; Buunk BP, 2003, BRIT J SOC PSYCHOL, V42, P613, DOI 10.1348/014466603322595301; Chapman GB, 1998, MED DECIS MAKING, V18, P278, DOI 10.1177/0272989X9801800304; Clarke AE, 1997, QUAL LIFE RES, V6, P169; Collins D, 2003, QUAL LIFE RES, V12, P229, DOI 10.1023/A:1023254226592; DAMSCHRODER LJ, 2005, 27 ANN M SOC MED DEC; Damschroder LJ, 2005, SOC SCI MED, V61, P267, DOI 10.1016/j.soscimed.2004.11.060; De Wit GA, 2000, HEALTH ECON, V9, P109, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(200003)9:2<109::AID-HEC503>3.0.CO;2-L; Diener E, 1999, PSYCHOL BULL, V125, P276, DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276; Dolan P, 1996, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V49, P551, DOI 10.1016/0895-4356(95)00532-3; Fife BL, 2005, SOC SCI MED, V61, P2132, DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.04.026; FOLKMAN S, 1986, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V50, P571, DOI 10.1037//0022-3514.50.3.571; Folkman S, 2000, AM PSYCHOL, V55, P647, DOI 10.1037//0003-066X.55.6.647; Frieswijk N, 2004, PSYCHOL AGING, V19, P183, DOI 10.1037/0882-7974.19.1.183; Gilbert DT, 1998, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V75, P617, DOI 10.1037//0022-3514.75.3.617; GOLD MR, 1993, COST EFFECTIVENESS H; HERSHEY JC, 1985, MANAGE SCI, V31, P1213, DOI 10.1287/mnsc.31.10.1213; HEWSTONE M, 1996, EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE; Hunink M, 2001, DECISION MAKING HLTH; Insinga RP, 2003, QUAL LIFE RES, V12, P611, DOI 10.1023/A:1025170308141; ISEN AM, 1988, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V55, P710, DOI 10.1037//0022-3514.55.5.710; Jansen SJT, 2001, BRIT J CANCER, V84, P1577, DOI 10.1054/bjoc.2001.1836; Jansen SJT, 2000, MED DECIS MAKING, V20, P62, DOI 10.1177/0272989X0002000108; Jansen SJT, 2001, MED DECIS MAKING, V21, P295, DOI 10.1177/02729890122062596; Jansen SJT, 2000, QUAL LIFE RES, V9, P603, DOI 10.1023/A:1008928617014; Joyce CRB, 2003, QUAL LIFE RES, V12, P275, DOI 10.1023/A:1023273117040; KAHNEMAN D, 1990, J POLIT ECON, V98, P1325, DOI 10.1086/261737; Kahneman D., 1999, FDN HEDONIC PSYCHOL; KAHNEMAN D, 1984, AM PSYCHOL, V39, P341, DOI 10.1037//0003-066X.39.4.341; Krabbe PFM, 1999, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V52, P293, DOI 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00163-2; Lazarus R. S., 1984, STRESS APPRAISAL COP; Lenert LA, 1999, MED CARE, V37, P479, DOI 10.1097/00005650-199905000-00007; Lenert LA, 1998, MED DECIS MAKING, V18, P76, DOI 10.1177/0272989X9801800115; LlewellynThomas HA, 1996, MED CARE, V34, pDS109; LLEWELLYNTHOMAS H, 1984, MED CARE, V22, P543, DOI 10.1097/00005650-198406000-00005; LLEWELLYNTHOMAS HA, 1992, MED DECIS MAKING, V12, P115, DOI 10.1177/0272989X9201200204; LLEWELLYNTHOMAS HA, 2000, ADAPTATION CHANGING; Loewenstein G, 2005, HEALTH PSYCHOL, V24, pS49, DOI 10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.S49; Luce MF, 1997, J EXP PSYCHOL LEARN, V23, P384, DOI 10.1037/0278-7393.23.2.384; Michalos AC, 2004, SOC INDIC RES, V65, P27, DOI 10.1023/A:1025592219390; Mussweiler T, 2003, PSYCHOL REV, V110, P472, DOI 10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.472; PAYNE JW, 1992, ANNU REV PSYCHOL, V43, P87, DOI 10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.000511; REVICKI DA, 1993, QUAL LIFE RES, V2, P477, DOI 10.1007/BF00422222; Riis J, 2005, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V134, P3, DOI 10.1037/0096-3445.134.1.3; RYFF CD, 1995, J PERS SOC PSYCHOL, V69, P719, DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719; Saigal CS, 2002, QUAL LIFE RES, V11, P405, DOI 10.1023/A:1015609126536; Salkeld G, 2000, HEALTH ECON, V9, P267, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(200004)9:3<267::AID-HEC511>3.0.CO;2-H; Salomon JA, 2004, BRIT MED J, V328, P258, DOI 10.1136/bmj.37963.691632.44; Schkade DA, 1998, PSYCHOL SCI, V9, P340, DOI 10.1111/1467-9280.00066; Schnittker J, 2005, MILBANK Q, V83, P397, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00407.x; SCHWARTZ CE, 2005, ASSESSING QUALITY LI; Schwartz CE, 1999, SOC SCI MED, V48, P1531, DOI 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00047-7; Schwarz N., 1991, SUBJECTIVE WELL BEIN; Schwarz N, 1999, AM PSYCHOL, V54, P93, DOI 10.1037/0003-066X.54.2.93; Seligman MEP, 2000, AM PSYCHOL, V55, P5, DOI 10.1037/0003-066X.56.1.89; Sprangers MAG, 1999, SOC SCI MED, V48, P1507, DOI 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00045-3; Sprangers MAG, 1996, CANCER TREAT REV, V22, P55, DOI 10.1016/S0305-7372(96)90064-X; Stalmeier PFM, 1999, MED DECIS MAKING, V19, P435, DOI 10.1177/0272989X9901900412; Stalmeier PFM, 2001, MED DECIS MAKING, V21, P200, DOI 10.1177/02729890122062497; Tedeschi RG, 2004, PSYCHOL INQ, V15, P1, DOI 10.1207/s15327965pli1501_01; TOURANGEAU R, 1988, PSYCHOL BULL, V103, P299, DOI 10.1037//0033-2909.103.3.299; Tsevat J, 1999, ANN INTERN MED, V131, P194; TVERSKY A, 1992, J RISK UNCERTAINTY, V5, P297, DOI 10.1007/BF00122574; Tversky A., 1991, SUBJECTIVE WELL BEIN; TVERSKY A, 1974, SCIENCE, V185, P1124, DOI 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124; Ubel PA, 2001, MED DECIS MAKING, V21, P190, DOI 10.1177/02729890122062488; Ubel PA, 2005, HEALTH PSYCHOL, V24, pS57, DOI 10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.S57; van Osch SMC, 2004, MED DECIS MAKING, V24, P511, DOI 10.1177/0272989X04268955; Visser MRM, 2000, J PAIN SYMPTOM MANAG, V20, P12, DOI 10.1016/S0885-3924(00)00148-2; Voogt E, 2005, J CLIN ONCOL, V23, P2012, DOI 10.1200/JCO.2005.07.104; WAKKER P, 1995, MED DECIS MAKING, V15, P180, DOI 10.1177/0272989X9501500212; Waldron D, 1999, J CLIN ONCOL, V17, P3603
Number of Citaion: 78
Publication: BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
City of Publication: OXFORD
Address of Publication: 9600 GARSINGTON RD, OXFORD OX4 2DQ, OXON, ENGLAND
ISSN: 1098-3015
29-Character Source Abbreviation: VALUE HEALTH
ISO Source Abbreviation: Value Health
Volume: 11
Version: 1
Start of File: 76
End of File: 87
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00216.x
Number of Pages: 12
Web of Science Category: Economics; Health Care Sciences & Services; Health Policy & Services
Subject Category: Business & Economics; Health Care Sciences & Services
Document Delivery Number: 258EW
Unique Article Identifier: WOS:000252852200009
- reply : 0
-
- list
-
- prev
- next