Skip to main content
PMC home page
Health Services Research logoLink to Health Services Research
. 1994 Jun;29(2):207–224.

The standard gamble method: what is being measured and how it is interpreted.

A Gafni 1
PMCID: PMC1069999  PMID: 8005790

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The Standard Gamble (SG) technique is recommended for measurement of individuals' preferences under uncertainty and to express the outcome of different therapeutic choices in utility values to be used in clinical decision analysis and health program evaluation. The article alerts users of this technique to problems stemming from inappropriate interpretation of results of measurements using the SG method. STUDY DESIGN. We review different situations where the SG method is used to measure individuals' or group preferences. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS. We demonstrate inappropriate interpretation of the time dimension at the individual level; issues stemming from the aggregation of individual utility values measured using different time horizons; the potential for double counting of the time preference effect when discounting future quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); and problems associated with using the SG technique to measure temporary health states. CONCLUSIONS. The inappropriate interpretations stem mainly either from ignoring the time dimension, which is inextricably bound to the health of the individual, or form adding assumptions, in addition to those required by von Neumann-Morgenstern (vNM) utility theory, that are not supported by empirical evidence. An alternative approach to QALYs, the healthy years equivalent (HYE), which incorporates the SG but avoids many of these problems, is described.

Full text

PDF
207

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Ben-Zion U., Gafni A. Evaluation of public investment in health care. Is the risk irrelevant? J Health Econ. 1983 Aug;2(2):161–165. doi: 10.1016/0167-6296(83)90005-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Boyd N. F., Sutherland H. J., Heasman K. Z., Tritchler D. L., Cummings B. J. Whose utilities for decision analysis? Med Decis Making. 1990 Jan-Mar;10(1):58–67. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9001000109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Feeny D. H., Torrance G. W. Incorporating utility-based quality-of-life assessment measures in clinical trials. Two examples. Med Care. 1989 Mar;27(3 Suppl):S190–S204. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198903001-00016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Froberg D. G., Kane R. L. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences--II: Scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42(5):459–471. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(89)90136-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gafni A., Birch S. Equity considerations in utility-based measures of health outcomes in economic appraisals: an adjustment algorithm. J Health Econ. 1991 Oct;10(3):329–342. doi: 10.1016/0167-6296(91)90033-j. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Goel V., Deber R. B., Detsky A. S. Nonionic contrast media: economic analysis and health policy development. CMAJ. 1989 Feb 15;140(4):389–395. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hall J., Gerard K., Salkeld G., Richardson J. A cost utility analysis of mammography screening in Australia. Soc Sci Med. 1992 May;34(9):993–1004. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(92)90130-i. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Krahn M., Gafni A. Discounting in the economic evaluation of health care interventions. Med Care. 1993 May;31(5):403–418. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199305000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lipscomb J. Time preference for health in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Care. 1989 Mar;27(3 Suppl):S233–S253. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198903001-00019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Loomes G., McKenzie L. The use of QALYs in health care decision making. Soc Sci Med. 1989;28(4):299–308. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(89)90030-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. McNeil B. J., Weichselbaum R., Pauker S. G. Fallacy of the five-year survival in lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 1978 Dec 21;299(25):1397–1401. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197812212992506. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Mehrez A., Gafni A. Quality-adjusted life years, utility theory, and healthy-years equivalents. Med Decis Making. 1989 Apr-Jun;9(2):142–149. doi: 10.1177/0272989X8900900209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Mehrez A., Gafni A. The healthy-years equivalents: how to measure them using the standard gamble approach. Med Decis Making. 1991 Apr-Jun;11(2):140–146. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9101100212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Miyamoto J. M., Eraker S. A. A multiplicative model of the utility of survival duration and health quality. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1988 Mar;117(1):3–20. doi: 10.1037//0096-3445.117.1.3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Miyamoto J. M., Eraker S. A. Parameter estimates for a QALY utility model. Med Decis Making. 1985 Summer;5(2):191–213. doi: 10.1177/0272989X8500500208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Pauker S. G., Kassirer J. P. Decision analysis. N Engl J Med. 1987 Jan 29;316(5):250–258. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198701293160505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Shepard D. S., Thompson M. S. First principles of cost-effectiveness analysis in health. Public Health Rep. 1979 Nov-Dec;94(6):535–543. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Sutherland H. J., Llewellyn-Thomas H., Boyd N. F., Till J. E. Attitudes toward quality of survival. The concept of "maximal endurable time". Med Decis Making. 1982;2(3):299–309. doi: 10.1177/0272989X8200200306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Torrance G. W., Boyle M. H., Horwood S. P. Application of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Oper Res. 1982 Nov-Dec;30(6):1043–1069. doi: 10.1287/opre.30.6.1043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Torrance G. W., Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1989;5(4):559–575. doi: 10.1017/s0266462300008461. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Torrance G. W. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ. 1986 Mar;5(1):1–30. doi: 10.1016/0167-6296(86)90020-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Weeks J. C., Tierney M. R., Weinstein M. C. Cost effectiveness of prophylactic intravenous immune globulin in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 1991 Jul 11;325(2):81–86. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199107113250202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Weinstein M. C., Stason W. B. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med. 1977 Mar 31;296(13):716–721. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197703312961304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Health Services Research are provided here courtesy of Health Research & Educational Trust

RESOURCES