Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases logoLink to Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
. 2000 Nov;59(11):892–897. doi: 10.1136/ard.59.11.892

Value of the time trade off method for measuring utilities in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

G Tijhuis 1, S Jansen 1, A Stiggelbout 1, A Zwinderman 1, J Hazes 1, T Vlieland 1
PMCID: PMC1753018  PMID: 11053068

Abstract

OBJECTIVE—To assess the feasibility, reliability, and validity of the time trade off (TTO) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS—The TTO was applied in 194 patients with RA with increasing difficulty in performing activities of daily living. The test-retest reliability was determined in 35 of these patients and was calculated by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Construct validity was evaluated with the following sets of variables: measures of utility (rating scale), quality of life (RAND 36 item Health Status Survey (RAND-36) and RAQoL), functional status (Health Assessment Questionnaire, grip strength, and walk test), and disease activity (doctor's global assessment, disease activity score, pain, and morning stiffness).
RESULTS—Ten patients (5%) did not complete the TTO. The median value of the TTO was 0.77 (range 0.03-1.0). The test-retest ICC of the TTO was 0.85 (p<0.001). Construct validity testing of the TTO showed poor to moderate correlations (Spearman's rs between 0.19 and 0.36, p<0.01) with all outcome measures except for the subscale role limitation (physical problem) of the RAND-36, the walk test, the doctor's global assessment of disease activity, and morning stiffness. Multiple regression analysis showed that only 17% of the variance of the TTO scores could be explained.
CONCLUSIONS—The TTO method appeared to be feasible and reliable in patients with RA. The poor to moderate correlations of the TTO with measures of quality of life, functional ability, and disease activity suggest that the TTO considers additional attributes of health status. This may have implications for the application of the TTO in clinical trials in patients with RA.



Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (128.2 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Arnett F. C., Edworthy S. M., Bloch D. A., McShane D. J., Fries J. F., Cooper N. S., Healey L. A., Kaplan S. R., Liang M. H., Luthra H. S. The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1988 Mar;31(3):315–324. doi: 10.1002/art.1780310302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakker C., Rutten-van Mölken M., Hidding A., van Doorslaer E., Bennett K., van der Linden S. Patient utilities in ankylosing spondylitis and the association with other outcome measures. J Rheumatol. 1994 Jul;21(7):1298–1304. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Blumenschein K., Johannesson M. Relationship between quality of life instruments, health state utilities, and willingness to pay in patients with asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1998 Feb;80(2):189–194. doi: 10.1016/S1081-1206(10)62954-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bosch J. L., Hunink M. G. The relationship between descriptive and valuational quality-of-life measures in patients with intermittent claudication. Med Decis Making. 1996 Jul-Sep;16(3):217–225. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9601600305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bursztajn H., Hamm R. M. The clinical utility of utility assessment. Med Decis Making. 1982;2(2):161–165. doi: 10.1177/0272989X8200200207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Chapman G. B., Elstein A. S., Kuzel T. M., Sharifi R., Nadler R. B., Andrews A., Bennett C. L. Prostate cancer patients' utilities for health states: how it looks depends on where you stand. Med Decis Making. 1998 Jul-Sep;18(3):278–286. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9801800304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ferraz M. B., Quaresma M. R., Goldsmith C. H., Bennett K., Atra E. Estimation des bénéfices et des risques du traitement de la polyarthrite rhumatoïde par les glucocorticoïdes à l'aide de mesures des préférences. Rev Rhum Ed Fr. 1994 Apr;61(4):255–259. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Goossens M. E., Vlaeyen J. W., Rutten-van Mölken M. P., van der Linden S. M. Patient utilities in chronic musculoskeletal pain: how useful is the standard gamble method? Pain. 1999 Mar;80(1-2):365–375. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3959(98)00232-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Grace E. M., Gerecz E. M., Kassam Y. B., Buchanan H. M., Buchanan W. W., Tugwell P. S. 50-foot walking time: a critical assessment of an outcome measure in clinical therapeutic trials of antirheumatic drugs. Br J Rheumatol. 1988 Oct;27(5):372–374. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/27.5.372. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hays R. D., Sherbourne C. D., Mazel R. M. The RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Health Econ. 1993 Oct;2(3):217–227. doi: 10.1002/hec.4730020305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Katz J. N., Phillips C. B., Fossel A. H., Liang M. H. Stability and responsiveness of utility measures. Med Care. 1994 Feb;32(2):183–188. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199402000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Lambert C. M., Hurst N. P., Forbes J. F., Lochhead A., Macleod M., Nuki G. Is day care equivalent to inpatient care for active rheumatoid arthritis? Randomised controlled clinical and economic evaluation. BMJ. 1998 Mar 28;316(7136):965–969. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7136.965. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Laupacis A., Bourne R., Rorabeck C., Feeny D., Wong C., Tugwell P., Leslie K., Bullas R. The effect of elective total hip replacement on health-related quality of life. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993 Nov;75(11):1619–1626. doi: 10.2106/00004623-199311000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Moore A. D., Clarke A. E., Danoff D. S., Joseph L., Bélisle P., Neville C., Fortin P. R. Can health utility measures be used in lupus research? A comparative validation and reliability study of 4 utility indices. J Rheumatol. 1999 Jun;26(6):1285–1290. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Pincus T., Callahan L. F. The 'side effects' of rheumatoid arthritis: joint destruction, disability and early mortality. Br J Rheumatol. 1993 Mar;32 (Suppl 1):28–37. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Read J. L., Quinn R. J., Berwick D. M., Fineberg H. V., Weinstein M. C. Preferences for health outcomes. Comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making. 1984;4(3):315–329. doi: 10.1177/0272989X8400400307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Revicki D. A., Kaplan R. M. Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res. 1993 Dec;2(6):477–487. doi: 10.1007/BF00422222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Robinson A., Dolan P., Williams A. Valuing health status using VAS and TTO: what lies behind the numbers? Soc Sci Med. 1997 Oct;45(8):1289–1297. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(97)00057-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Russell L. B., Gold M. R., Siegel J. E., Daniels N., Weinstein M. C. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996 Oct 9;276(14):1172–1177. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Siegert C. E., Vleming L. J., Vandenbroucke J. P., Cats A. Measurement of disability in Dutch rheumatoid arthritis patients. Clin Rheumatol. 1984 Sep;3(3):305–309. doi: 10.1007/BF02032335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Smolen J. S., Breedveld F. C., Eberl G., Jones I., Leeming M., Wylie G. L., Kirkpatrick J. Validity and reliability of the twenty-eight-joint count for the assessment of rheumatoid arthritis activity. Arthritis Rheum. 1995 Jan;38(1):38–43. doi: 10.1002/art.1780380106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Stiggelbout A. M., Kiebert G. M., Kievit J., Leer J. W., Habbema J. D., De Haes J. C. The "utility" of the Time Trade-Off method in cancer patients: feasibility and proportional Trade-Off. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995 Oct;48(10):1207–1214. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(95)00011-r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. 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]
  24. Torrance G. W., Thomas W. H., Sackett D. L. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res. 1972 Summer;7(2):118–133. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Torrance G. W. Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(6):593–603. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90019-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Ware J. E., Jr, Sherbourne C. D. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473–483. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. de Jong Z., van der Heijde D., McKenna S. P., Whalley D. The reliability and construct validity of the RAQoL: a rheumatoid arthritis-specific quality of life instrument. Br J Rheumatol. 1997 Aug;36(8):878–883. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/36.8.878. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES