The ‘Utility’ of the Visual Analog Scale in Medical Decision Making and Technology Assessment: Is It an Alternative to the Time Trade-off? | International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

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.

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