Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T22:14:37.155Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Valuing outcomes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2014

M. G. Myriam Hunink ,
Milton C. Weinstein ,
Eve Wittenberg ,
Michael F. Drummond ,
Joseph S. Pliskin ,
John B. Wong  and
Paul P. Glasziou
M. G. Myriam Hunink
Affiliation:
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Milton C. Weinstein
Affiliation:
Harvard University, Massachusetts
Eve Wittenberg
Affiliation:
Harvard School of Public Health, Massachusetts
Michael F. Drummond
Affiliation:
University of York
Joseph S. Pliskin
Affiliation:
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
John B. Wong
Affiliation:
Tufts University, Massachusetts
Paul P. Glasziou
Affiliation:
Bond University, Queensland
Get access

Summary

Values are what we care about. As such, values should be the driving force for our decision making. They should be the basis for the time and effort we spend thinking about decisions. But this is not the way it is. It is not even close to the way it is.

Ralph Keeney

Introduction

Value judgments underlie virtually all clinical decisions. Sometimes the decision rests on a comparison of probability alone, such as the probability of surviving an acute episode of illness. In such cases, there is a single outcome measure – the probability of immediate survival – that can be averaged out to arrive at an optimal decision. In most cases, however, decisions between alternative strategies require not only estimates of the probabilities of the associated outcomes, but also value judgments about how to weigh the benefits versus the harms, and how to incorporate other factors like individual preferences for convenience, timing, who makes decisions, who else is affected by the decision, and the like. Consider the following examples.

Type
Chapter
Information
Decision Making in Health and Medicine
Integrating Evidence and Values
 , pp. 78 - 117
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

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

Pauker, SG. Medical decision making: how patients choose. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(5 Suppl):8S–10S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Epstein, RM, Alper, BS, Quill, TE. Communicating evidence for participatory decision making. JAMA. 2004;291(19):2359–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trevena, LJ, Davey, HM, Barratt, A, Butow, P, Caldwell, P. A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence. Eval Clin Pract. 2006;12(1):13–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurian, AW, Sigal, BM, Plevritis, SK. Survival analysis of cancer risk reduction strategies for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(2):222–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, MD, Valdimarsdottir, HB, DeMarco, TA, et al. Randomized trial of a decision aid for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers: impact on measures of decision making and satisfaction. Health Psychology. 2009;28(1):11–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaufman, EM PB, Lawrence, WF, Shelby, R, et al. Development of an interactive decision aid for female BRCA1/BRCA2 carriers. J Genet Couns. 2003;12:109–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurian, AW, Munoz, DF, Rust, P, et al. Online tool to guide decisions for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(5):497–506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Connor, AM, Bennett, CL, Stacey, D, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Online). 2009(3):CD001431.
Wilcox, E. Decisions for dummies. CMAJ. 2009;181(5):E78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raiffa, H. Decision analysis: introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. 1st ed. New York: Random House; 1968.Google Scholar
Von Neumann, J, Morgenstern, O. Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1944.Google Scholar
Pliskin, J, Shepard, D, Weinstein, M. Utility functions for life years and health status. Oper Res. 1980;28(1):206–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McHorney, CA, Ware, JE, Raczek, AE. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care. 1993;31:247–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ware, JE, Sherbourne, CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beck, AT, Ward, CH, Mendelson, M, Mock, J, J. E.An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of Gen Psych. 1961;4:53–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, DR, Wittenberg, E, Swan, JS, Miksad, RA, Prosser, LA. Methods for measuring temporary health states for cost-utility analyses. PharmacoEconomics. 2009;27(9):713–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jansen, SJ, Stiggelbout, AM, Wakker, PP, et al. Patients’ utilities for cancer treatments: a study of the chained procedure for the standard gamble and time tradeoff. Med Decis Making. 1998;18(4):391–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dolan, P, Gudex, C, Kind, P, Williams, A. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J Health Econ. 1996;15(2):209–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bayoumi, AM. The measurement of contingent valuation for health economics. PharmacoEconomics. 2004;22(11):691–700.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Brien, B, Gafni, A. When do the “dollars” make sense? Toward a conceptual framework for contingent valuation studies in health care. Med Decis Making. 1996;16(3):288–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, J, Nord, E. The importance of perspective in the measurement of quality-adjusted life years. Med Decis Making. 1997;17(1):33–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craig, BM, Busschbach, JJ, Salomon, JA. Modeling ranking, time trade-off, and visual analog scale values for EQ-5D health states: a review and comparison of methods. Med Care. 2009;47(6):634–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salomon, JA. Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data. Population Health Metrics. 2003;1(1):12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flynn, TN, Louviere, JJ, Marley, AA, Coast, J, Peters, TJ. Rescaling quality of life values from discrete choice experiments for use as QALYs: a cautionary tale. Population Health Metrics. 2008;6:6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lancsar, E, Louviere, J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. PharmacoEconomics. 2008;26(8):661–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salomon, J, Vos, T, Hogan, D, et al. Common values in assessing health outcomes from disease and injury: Global Burden of Disease 2010 disability weights measurement study. Lancet. in press.
Torrance, GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ. 1986;5(1):1–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Torrance, GW, Feeny, DH, Furlong, WJ, et al. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care. 1996;34:702–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brazier, JE, Yang, Y, Tsuchiya, A, Rowen, DL. A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur J Health Econ. 2010;11(2):215–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brazier, J, Roberts, J, Deverill, M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brazier, JE, Roberts, J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004;42(9):851–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dolan, P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feeny, D, Furlong, W, Boyle, M, Torrance, GW. Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health utilities index. PharmacoEconomics. 1995;7:490–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Torrance, GW, Furlong, W, Feeny, D, Boyle, M. Multi-attribute preference functions. Health Utilities Index. PharmacoEconomics. 1995;7(6):503–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The EuroQol Group. EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group. Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 1990;16(3):199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prosser, LA, Grosse, SD, Wittenberg, E. Health utility elicitation: is there still a role for direct methods?PharmacoEconomics. 2012;30(2):83–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, CM, Chapman, RH, Stone, PW, Sandberg, EA, Neumann, PJ. An off-the-shelf help list: a comprehensive catalog of preference scores from published cost-utility analyses. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(4):288–94.Google ScholarPubMed
Franks, P, Hanmer, J, Fryback, DG. Relative disutilities of 47 risk factors and conditions assessed with seven preference-based health status measures in a national U.S. sample: toward consistency in cost-effectiveness analyses. Med Care. 2006;44(5):478–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patrick, DL, Starks, HE, Cain, KC, Uhlmann, RF, Pearlman, RA. Measuring preferences for health states worse than death. Med Decis Making. 1994;14:9–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tilling, C, Devlin, N, Tsuchiya, A, Buckingham, K. Protocols for time tradeoff valuations of health states worse than dead: a literature review. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(5):610–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stalmeier, PF, Lamers, LM, Busschbach, JJ, Krabbe, PF. On the assessment of preferences for health and duration: maximal endurable time and better than dead preferences. Med Care. 2007;45(9):835–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johannesson, M, Pliskin, JS, Weinstein, MC. A note on QALYs, time tradeoff, and discounting. Med Decis Making. 1994;14:188–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bleichrodt, H, Gafni, A. Time preference, the discounted utility model and health. J Health Econ. 1996;15(1):49–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bleichrodt, H, Johannesson, M. The validity of QALYs: an experimental test of constant proportional tradeoff and utility independence. Med Decis Making. 1997;17(1):21–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wakker, P. A criticism of healthy-years equivalents. Med Decis Making. 1996;16(3):207–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dolan, P. Thinking about it: thoughts about health and valuing QALYs. Health Econ. 2011;20(12):1407–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Payne, J BJ, Schkade, D. Measuring constructed preferences: toward a building code. J Risk Uncertainty. 1999;19(1–3):243–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D, A. T.Choices, values and frames. Amer Psychologist. 1984;39:341–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhberger, A. The influence of framing on risky decisions: a meta-analysis. Org Behav Hum Decis Processes. 1998;75:23–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNeil, BJ, Pauker, SG, SoxJ, H.C., Tversky, A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med. 1982;306:1259–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wittenberg, E, Prosser, LA. Ordering errors, objections and invariance in utility survey responses: a framework for understanding who, why and what to do. Applied Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(4):225–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gold, MR, Siegel, JE, Russell, LB, Weinstein, MC. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
Grosse, SD, Prosser, LA, Asakawa, K, Feeny, D. QALY weights for neurosensory impairments in pediatric economic evaluations: case studies and a critique. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10(3):293–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: NICE 2008.Google Scholar
Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for Preparing Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra ACT: Department of Health and Aging 2008.Google Scholar
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies. Ottawa, Canada 2006.Google Scholar
Miller, W, Robinson, L, Lawrence, R, editors. Valuing Health for Regulatory Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, National Academies Press; 2006.Google Scholar
Nan, L, Johnson, JA, Shaw, JW, Coons, SJ. A comparison of EQ-5D index scores derived from the US and UK population-based scoring functions. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(3):321–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×