A Comparison of Different Strategies to Collect Standard Gamble Utilities

Thomas Hammerschmidt, Hans-Peter Zeitler, Markus Gulich and Reiner Leidl
Additional contact information
Thomas Hammerschmidt: Department of Health Economics, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany; Georg-Hegenauer-Ring 9, D-83026 Rosenheim, Germany;thomas.hammerschmidt@gsk.com.
Markus Gulich: Department of General Medicine, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.

Medical Decision Making, 2004, vol. 24, issue 5, 493-503

Abstract: Objective. The authors performed a methodological comparison of the usual standard gamble with methods that could also be used in mailed questionnaires. Methods . Ninety-two diabetic patients valued diabetes-related health states twice. In face-to-face interviews, the authors used an iterative standard gamble (ISG) in which the probabilities were varied in a ping-pong manner and a self-completion method (SC) with top-down titration as search procedure (SC-TD) in 2 independent subsamples of 46 patients. Three months later, all patients received a mailed questionnaire in which the authors used the self-completion method with bottom-up (SCBU) and SC-TD as search procedures . Results . ISG and SCTD showed feasibility and consistency in the interviews. The ISG resulted in significantly higher utilities than the SC-TD . Two thirds of the mailed questionnaires provided useful results indicating some problems of feasibility. Utilities measured by SC-BU and SC-TD did not differ significantly showing procedural invariance. Further, patients indicated ambivalence when given the choice not to definitely state their preferences . Conclusions .The results show that different strategies to collect standard gamble utilities can yield different results. Compared with the usually applied ISG, the SC method is feasible in interviews and provides a consistent alternative that is less costly when used in mailed questionnaires, although its practicability has to be improved in this later setting.

Keywords: utility assessment; standard gamble; methodology; diabetes (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2004
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X04269239 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:24:y:2004:i:5:p:493-503

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04269239

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().