Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Quality of Life Research
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research 7/2016

24.11.2015

Validity of standard gamble utilities in patients referred for aortic valve replacement

verfasst von: Amjad I. Hussain, Andrew M. Garratt, Jan Otto Beitnes, Lars Gullestad, Kjell I. Pettersen

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 7/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Purpose

Standard gamble (SG) is the preferred method of assessing preferences in situations with uncertainty and risk, which makes it relevant to patients considered for aortic valve replacement (AVR). The present study assesses SG preferences in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).

Methods

All patients >18 years old with severe AS referred for AVR to our institution were invited to enroll in the study. The SG was administered by a clinical research nurse. The SF-36, EQ-5D 3L, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and AS symptoms were administered by self-completed questionnaire. We hypothesized that SG utilities would have low-to-moderate correlations with physical and mental aspects of health based on our pathophysiological understanding of severe AS. No correlations were expected with echocardiographic measures of the aortic valve.

Results

The response rate for SG was 98 %. SG moderately correlated with physical aspects of SF-36 (PCS, role-physical, vitality), health transition, AS symptoms, and EQ-VAS (ρ S = 0.31–0.39, p < 0.001) and had low correlation with mental aspects of SF-36 and EQ-5D (ρ S = 0.17–0.28, p < 0.001). No correlation was found between SG and HADS, echocardiographic measures, age, gender, or education level (ρ S = 0.01–0.06).

Conclusions

SG is an acceptable and feasible method of assessing preferences in patients with severe AS that has evidence for validity. The inclusion of uncertainty lends the SG face validity in this population as a direct approach to assessing preferences and basis for QALY calculations.
Vorheriger Artikel Interpretation of Renal Quality of Life Profile scores in routine clinical practice: an aid to treatment decision-making
Nächster Artikel Prognostic value of health-related quality of life in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a random forest methodology

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Literatur
1.
Leon, M. B., et al. (2010). Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. New England Journal of Medicine, 363(17), 1597–1607.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Reynolds, M. R., et al. (2011). Health-related quality of life after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis. Circulation, 124(18), 1964–1972.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Barreto-Filho, J. A., et al. (2013). Trends in aortic valve replacement for elderly patients in the United States, 1999–2011. JAMA, 310(19), 2078–2085.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Martinez-Selles, M., et al. (2014). Prospective registry of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis in octogenarians: a need for intervention. Journal of Internal Medicine, 275(6), 608–620.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Gadey, G., & Reynolds, M. R. (2014). Cost-effectiveness considerations in transcatheter management of valvular heart disease. Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 30(9), 1058–1063.CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
Torrance, G. W., & Feeny, D. (1989). Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 5(4), 559–575.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Drummond, M. F., et al. (2005). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
Torrance, G. W., Furlong, W., & Feeny, D. (2002). Health utility estimation. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 2(2), 99–108.CrossRef
10.
Gafni, A. (1994). The standard gamble method: what is being measured and how it is interpreted. Health Services Research, 29(2), 207–224.PubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Torrance, G. W., et al. (1996). Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Medical Care, 34(7), 702–722.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Green, C., Brazier, J., & Deverill, M. (2000). Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics, 17(2), 151–165.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Dewey, J. E. (2000). How to score version 2 of the SF-36 health survey: (standard & acute forms). Lincolm, RI: QualityMetric Inc.
14.
McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E, Jr, & Raczek, A. E. (1993). The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Medical Care, 31(3), 247–263.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Falcoz, P. E., et al. (2002). Comparison of the Nottingham Health Profile and the 36-item health survey questionnaires in cardiac surgery. Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 73(4), 1222–1228.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Tseng, E. E., et al. (1997). Aortic valve replacement in the elderly. Risk factors and long-term results. Annals of Surgery, 225(6), 793–802. (discussion 802-4).CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Sundt, T. M., et al. (2000). Quality of life after aortic valve replacement at the age of >80 years. Circulation, 102(19 Suppl 3), Iii70-4.PubMed
18.
Loge, J. H., & Kaasa, S. (1998). Short form 36 (SF-36) health survey: normative data from the general Norwegian population. Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine, 26(4), 250–258.PubMed
19.
Karlsen, T. I., et al. (2011). Validity of the SF-36 in patients with morbid obesity. Obesity Facts, 4(5), 346–351.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Fredheim, O. M., et al. (2007). Validation and comparison of the health-related quality-of-life instruments EORTC QLQ-C30 and SF-36 in assessment of patients with chronic nonmalignant pain. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 34(6), 657–665.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2001). EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 337–343.CrossRefPubMed
22.
The EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRef
23.
Brazier, J., et al. (2003). Use of visual analog scales in economic evaluation. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 3(3), 293–302.CrossRef
24.
Torrance, G. W., Feeny, D., & Furlong, W. (2001). Visual analog scales: Do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Medical Decision Making, 21(4), 329–334.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Froberg, D. G., & Kane, R. L. (1989). Methodology for measuring health-state preferences—II: Scaling methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 42(5), 459–471.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Herrmann, C. (1997). International experiences with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale—A review of validation data and clinical results. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 42(1), 17–41.CrossRefPubMed
27.
New York Heart Association Criteria, C. (1979). Nomenclature and criteria for diagnosis of diseases of the heart and great vessels. Boston: Little, Brown.
28.
Lang, R. M., et al. (2005). Recommendations for chamber quantification: A report from the American Society of Echocardiography’s Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Chamber Quantification Writing Group, developed in conjunction with the European Association of Echocardiography, a branch of the European Society of Cardiology. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography, 18(12), 1440–1463.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Quinones, M. A., et al. (2002). Recommendations for quantification of Doppler echocardiography: A report from the Doppler Quantification Task Force of the Nomenclature and Standards Committee of the American Society of Echocardiography. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography, 15(2), 167–184.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Chesebro, J. H., et al. (1987). Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Trial, Phase I: A comparison between intravenous tissue plasminogen activator and intravenous streptokinase. Clinical Findings through hospital discharge. Circulation, 76(1), 142–154.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Charlson, M. E., et al. (1987). A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40(5), 373–383.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Charlson, M., et al. (1994). Validation of a combined comorbidity index. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 47(11), 1245–1251.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Brazier, J., & Deverill, M. (1999). A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics. Health Economics, 8(1), 41–51.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Dolan, P., et al. (1996). The time trade-off method: Results from a general population study. Health Economics, 5(2), 141–154.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.
36.
Bennett, J. A., et al. (2002). Validity and reliability of the NYHA classes for measuring research outcomes in patients with cardiac disease. Heart & Lung: The Journal of Acute and Critical Care, 31(4), 262–270.CrossRefPubMed
37.
38.
Szende, A., Oppe, M., & Devlin, N. (2007). EQ-5D value sets: Inventory, comparative review and user guide. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.CrossRef
39.
Slevin, M. L., et al. (1990). Attitudes to chemotherapy: Comparing views of patients with cancer with those of doctors, nurses, and general public. BMJ, 300(6737), 1458–1460.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Torrance, G. W. (1987). Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40(6), 593–603.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Bleichrodt, H., & Johannesson, M. (1997). An experimental test of a theoretical foundation for rating-scale valuations. Medical Decision Making, 17(2), 208–216.CrossRefPubMed
42.
van der Donk, J., et al. (1995). Patient participation in clinical decision-making for treatment of T3 laryngeal cancer: A comparison of state and process utilities. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 13(9), 2369–2378.PubMed
43.
Rutten-van Molken, M. P., et al. (1995). Methodological issues of patient utility measurement. Experience from two clinical trials. Medical Care, 33(9), 922–937.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Clarke, A. E., et al. (1997). The effect of assessment method and respondent population on utilities elicited for Gaucher disease. Quality of Life Research, 6(2), 169–184.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Zug, K. A., et al. (1995). Assessing the preferences of patients with psoriasis. A quantitative, utility approach. Archives of Dermatology, 131(5), 561–568.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Nishimura, R. A., et al. (2014). 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation, 129(23), e521–e643.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Lloyd, A., et al. (2008). Health State Utility Scores for Cancer-Related Anemia through Societal and Patient Valuations. Value in Health, 11(7), 1178–1185.CrossRefPubMed
48.
McNamee, P. (2007). What difference does it make? The calculation of QALY gains from health profiles using patient and general population values. Health Policy, 84(2–3), 321–331.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Reynolds, M. R., et al. (2012). Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: Results of the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial (Cohort A). Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 60(25), 2683–2692.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Watt, M., et al. (2012). Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients ineligible for conventional aortic valve replacement. Heart, 98(5), 370–376.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Singer, L. G., Theodore, J., & Gould, M. K. (2003). Validity of standard gamble utilities as measured by transplant readiness in lung transplant candidates. Medical Decision Making, 23(5), 435–440.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Nease, R. F, Jr, et al. (1995). Variation in patient utilities for outcomes of the management of chronic stable angina. Implications for clinical practice guidelines. Ischemic Heart Disease Patient Outcomes Research Team. JAMA, 273(15), 1185–1190.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Dolan, P., & Sutton, M. (1997). Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values. Social Science and Medicine, 44(10), 1519–1530.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Doctor, J. N., Bleichrodt, H., & Lin, H. J. (2010). Health utility bias: A systematic review and meta-analytic evaluation. Medical Decision Making, 30(1), 58–67.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Gerard, K., Dobson, M., & Hall, J. (1993). Framing and labelling effects in health descriptions: Quality adjusted life years for treatment of breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46(1), 77–84.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Validity of standard gamble utilities in patients referred for aortic valve replacement
verfasst von
Amjad I. Hussain
Andrew M. Garratt
Jan Otto Beitnes
Lars Gullestad
Kjell I. Pettersen
Publikationsdatum
24.11.2015
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 7/2016
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1186-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2016

Quality of Life Research 7/2016 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Prognostic value of health-related quality of life in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a random forest methodology

Brief Communication

The EORTC QLQ-CR29 quality of life questionnaire for colorectal cancer: validation of the Dutch version

OriginalPaper

Mode effects between computer self-administration and telephone interviewer-administration of the PROMIS® pediatric measures, self- and proxy report

OriginalPaper

Quality of life in Iranian patients with bipolar disorder: a psychometric study of the Persian Brief Quality of Life in Bipolar Disorder (QoL.BD)

OriginalPaper

Item bank development, calibration and validation for patient-reported outcomes in female urinary incontinence

OriginalPaper

Interpretation of Renal Quality of Life Profile scores in routine clinical practice: an aid to treatment decision-making

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise