Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T04:55:14.549Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘Utility’ of the Visual Analog Scale in Medical Decision Making and Technology Assessment: Is It an Alternative to the Time Trade-off?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Anne M. Stiggelbout ,
Marinus J. C. Eijkemans ,
Gwendoline M. Kiebert ,
Job Kievit ,
Jan-Willem H. Leer  and
Hanneke J. C. J. M. De Haes
Anne M. Stiggelbout
Affiliation:
University Hospital Leiden
Marinus J. C. Eijkemans
Affiliation:
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Gwendoline M. Kiebert
Affiliation:
University Hospital Leiden
Job Kievit
Affiliation:
University Hospital Leiden
Jan-Willem H. Leer
Affiliation:
University Hospital Leiden
Hanneke J. C. J. M. De Haes
Affiliation:
University Hospital Leiden and Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Methods often used for the valuation of health states are the time trade-off (TTO) and the visual analog scale (VAS). The VAS is easier than the TTO and can be self-administered; however it usually leads to lower scores. In the literature a power transformation of group mean VAS scores to TTO scores has been proposed. We were able to replicate this finding of a power function. We found coefficients that were very similar to those from the literature, for 183 cancer patients. The relationship existed independently of disease state and health status.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , Spring 1996 , pp. 291 - 298
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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

REFERENCES

1.Bombardier, C., Wolfson, A. D., Sinclair, A. J., & McGeer, A. Comparison of three preference measurement methodologies in the evaluation of a functional status index. In Deber, R. & Thompson, G. (eds.), Choices in health care: Decision making and evaluation of effectiveness. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1982, 145–59.Google Scholar
2.De Haes, J. C. J. M., De Koning, H. J., Van Oortmarssen, G. J., et al. The impact of a breast cancer screening programme on quality-adjusted life-years. International Journal of Cancer, 1991, 49, 538–44.Google Scholar
3.Drummond, M. F.Resource allocation decisions in health care: A role for quality of life assessments? Journal of Chronic Disease, 1987, 40, 605–16.Google Scholar
4.Froberg, D. A., & Kane, R. L.Methodology for measuring health-state preferences, II: Scaling methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1989, 42, 459–71.Google Scholar
5.Kaplan, R. M., Feeny, D., & Revicki, D. A.Methods for assessing relative importance in preference based outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 1993, 2, 467–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Loomes, G.Disparities between health state measures: An explanation and some implications. York, UK: Department of Economics, University of York, 1988.Google Scholar
7.Netherlands Central Bureau for Statistics. Vademecum of health statistics in the Netherlands 1992. The Hague, The Netherlands, SDU Uitgeverij, 1992.Google Scholar
8.Nord, E.A comment on the meaning of numerical valuations of health states. Social Science Medicine, 1990, 30, 943–44.Google Scholar
9.Nord, E.Methods for quality adjustment of life years. Social Science Medicine, 1992, 34, 559–69.Google Scholar
10.O’Leary, J. F., Fairclough, D. L., Jankowsky, M. K., & Weeks, J. C.Comparison of time–tradeoff utilities and rating scale values of cancer patients and their relatives: Evidence for a possible plateau relationship. Medical Decision Making, 1995, 15, 132–37.Google Scholar
11.Read, J. L., Quinn, R. J., Berwick, D. M., et al. Preferences for health outcomes: Comparison of assessment methods. Medical Decision Making, 1984, 4, 315–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Stiggelbout, A. M., Kiebert, G. M., Kievit, J., et al. The “utility” of the Time Trade-Off method in cancer patients: Feasibility and proportional trade-off. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1995, 48, 1207–14.Google Scholar
13.Stiggelbout, A. M., Kiebert, G. M., Kievit, J., et al. Utility assessment in cancer patients: Adjustment of time tradeoff scores for the utility of life years and comparison with standard gamble scores. Medical Decision Making, 1994, 14, 82–90.Google Scholar
14.Torrance, G. W.Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: A review. Journal of Health Economics, 1986, 5, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Torrance, G. W.Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio Economic Planning Science, 1976, 10, 129–36.Google Scholar
16.Van Busschbach, J.De validiteit van QALY's (The validity of QALY's). Unpublished PhD thesis. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Erasmus University Rotterdam, Sanders Instituut, 1994.Google Scholar
17.Van Hout, B., Bonsel, G., Habbema, J. D. F., et al. Heart transplantation in the Netherlands: Cost effects and scenarios. Journal of Health Economics, 1993, 12, 73–93.Google Scholar