Abstract
The time trade-off is often argued to be the preferred utility assessment method. When measuring current health in its classic form, it involves a comparison of two certainties: perfect health and current health, each for a fixed period of time and followed by death. This makes the time trade-off insensitive to patient fears regarding premature death or worsening health. We suggest the classic time trade-off be modified to include subjective rather than actuarial life expectancy, and relaxation of the current health option to include uncertainty in quantity and quality of life. We illustrate the mechanics of this modified time trade-off and report a preliminary application to 122 men presenting to a prostate cancer screening program. Further analysis of this modified time trade-off appears warranted.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Clarke A. E., Goldstein M. K., Michelson D., Garber A. M., Lenert L. A. The effect of assessment method and respondent population on utilities elicited for Gaucher disease. Qual Life Res. 1997 Mar;6(2):169–184. doi: 10.1023/a:1026446302100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cowen M. E., Miles B. J., Cahill D. F., Giesler R. B., Beck J. R., Kattan M. W. The danger of applying group-level utilities in decision analyses of the treatment of localized prostate cancer in individual patients. Med Decis Making. 1998 Oct-Dec;18(4):376–380. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9801800404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kaplan R. M., Feeny D., Revicki D. A. Methods for assessing relative importance in preference based outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 1993 Dec;2(6):467–475. doi: 10.1007/BF00422221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nease R. F., Jr, Tsai R., Hynes L. M., Littenberg B. Automated utility assessment of global health. Qual Life Res. 1996 Feb;5(1):175–182. doi: 10.1007/BF00435983. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nord E. Methods for quality adjustment of life years. Soc Sci Med. 1992 Mar;34(5):559–569. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(92)90211-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Richardson J. Cost utility analysis: what should be measured? Soc Sci Med. 1994 Jul;39(1):7–21. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(94)90162-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Stiggelbout A. M., Kiebert G. M., Kievit J., Leer J. W., Stoter G., de Haes J. C. Utility assessment in cancer patients: adjustment of time tradeoff scores for the utility of life years and comparison with standard gamble scores. Med Decis Making. 1994 Jan-Mar;14(1):82–90. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9401400110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Torrance G. W. Preferences for health states: a review of measurement methods. Mead Johnson Symp Perinat Dev Med. 1982;(20):37–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tsevat J., Dawson N. V., Wu A. W., Lynn J., Soukup J. R., Cook E. F., Vidaillet H., Phillips R. S. Health values of hospitalized patients 80 years or older. HELP Investigators. Hospitalized Elderly Longitudinal Project. JAMA. 1998 Feb 4;279(5):371–375. doi: 10.1001/jama.279.5.371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Weeks J. C., Cook E. F., O'Day S. J., Peterson L. M., Wenger N., Reding D., Harrell F. E., Kussin P., Dawson N. V., Connors A. F., Jr Relationship between cancer patients' predictions of prognosis and their treatment preferences. JAMA. 1998 Jun 3;279(21):1709–1714. doi: 10.1001/jama.279.21.1709. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]