LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Stein, K.; Dyer, M.; Crabb, T.; Milne, R.; Round, A.; Ratcliffe, J.; Brazier, J. (2006)
Publisher: BioMed Central
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
Objectives\ud \ud To pilot using a panel of members of the public to provide preference data via the Internet\ud \ud Methods\ud \ud A stratified random sample of members of the general public was recruited and familiarised with the standard gamble procedure using an Internet based tool. Health states were perdiodically presented in "sets" corresponding to different conditions, during the study. The following were described: Recruitment (proportion of people approached who were trained); Participation (a) the proportion of people trained who provided any preferences and (b) the proportion of panel members who contributed to each "set" of values; and Compliance (the proportion, per participant, of preference tasks which were completed). The influence of covariates on these outcomes was investigated using univariate and multivariate analyses.\ud \ud Results\ud \ud A panel of 112 people was recruited. 23% of those approached (n = 5,320) responded to the invitation, and 24% of respondents (n = 1,215) were willing to participate (net = 5.5%). However, eventual recruitment rates, following training, were low (2.1% of those approached). Recruitment from areas of high socioeconomic deprivation and among ethnic minority communities was low. Eighteen sets of health state descriptions were considered over 14 months. 74% of panel members carried out at least one valuation task. People from areas of higher socioeconomic deprivation and unmarried people were less likely to participate. An average of 41% of panel members expressed preferences on each set of descriptions. Compliance ranged from 3% to 100%.\ud \ud Conclusion\ud \ud It is feasible to establish a panel of members of the general public to express preferences on a wide range of health state descriptions using the Internet, although differential recruitment and attrition are important challenges. Particular attention to recruitment and retention in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation and among ethnic minority communities is necessary. Nevertheless, the panel approach to preference measurement using the Internet offers the potential to provide specific utility data in a responsive manner for use in economic evaluations and to address some of the outstanding methodological uncertainties in this field.\ud \ud
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Hutton J, Brown R: Use of economic evaluation in decisionmaking: What needs to change? Value Health 2002, 5:65-66.
    • 2. Neumann PJ: Why don't Americans use cost-effectiveness analysis? American Journal of Managed Care 2005, 10:308-312.
    • 3. Sonnad S, Greenberg D, Rosen A, Neumann P: Diffusion of published cost-utility analyses in the field of health policy and practice. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2005, 21:399-402.
    • 4. Glennie J, Torrance GW, Baladi J, Berka C, Hubbard E, Menon D, Otten N, Riviera M: The revised Canadian Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomics 1999, 15:459-468.
    • 5. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB: recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine consensus statement. JAMA 1996, 276:1253-1258.
    • 6. National Institute for Clinical Excellence: Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London, National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2003.
    • 7. Dolan P: Whose Preferences Count? Med Decis Making 1999, 19:482-486.
    • 8. Brazier J, Akehurst R, Brennan A, Dolan P, Claxton K, McCabe C, O'Hagan T, Sculpher M, Tsuchyia A: Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states: whose well-being is it anyway? [04/3]. Sheffield, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield. Discussion Paper Series; 2004.
    • 9. Torrance G, Feeny D, Furlong W, Barr R, Zhang Y, Wang Q: Multiattribute utility functions for a comprehensive health status classification. Medical Care 1996, 34:702-722.
    • 10. Gafni A: Willingness to pay as a measure of benefits: relevant questions in the context of public decision making about health care programmes. Medical Care 1991, 29:1246-1252.
    • 11. De Wit GA, Busschbach JJ, De Charro FT: Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count? Health Econ 2000, 9:109-126.
    • 12. Buckingham K: A note on HYE (healthy years equivalent). Health Economics 1993, 12:301-309.
    • 13. Ubel P, Richardson J, Menzel P: Societal value, the person tradeoff, and the dilemma of whose values to measure for costeffectiveness analysis. Health Economics 2000, 9:127-136.
    • 14. Furlong W, Oldridge N, Perkins A, Feeny D, Torrance GW: Community or Patient Preferences for Cost-Utility Analyses: Does it Matter? International Society for Pharmacoeconomics, ISPOR Conference, Arlington, Virginia 2003.
    • 15. Stein K, Fry A, Round A, Milne R, Brazier J: What value health? A review of health state values used in early technology assessments for NICE. Applied Health Economics and Policy 2006.
    • 16. Dolan P: The measurement of health related quality of life for use in resource allocation in health care. In Handbook of Health Economics Edited by: Culyer A, Newhouse J. London: Elsevier Science; 2002.
    • 17. Brennan P, Strombom I: Improving health care by understanding patient preferences. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 1998, 5:257-262.
    • 18. Sumner W, Nease R, Littenberg B: U-titer: a utility assessment tool. Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer Application in Medical Care 1991:701-705.
    • 19. Sonnenberg FA: UMaker. New Jersey, Clinical Informatics Research Group, University of Medicine and Dentistry; 1993.
    • 20. Gonzalez B, Eckman G, et al.: Gambler: a computer workstation for patient utility assessment. Medical Decision Making 1992, 12:350.
    • 21. Lenert L, Michelson D, Flowers C, Bergen M: IMPACT: an objectorientated graphical environment for construction of multimedia patient interviewing software. Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer Application in Medical Care 1995:319-323.
    • 22. Lenert LA, Sturley A, Watson ME: iMPACT3: Internet-Based Development and Administration of Utility Elicitation Protocols. Med Decis Making 2002, 22:464-474.
    • 23. McFarlane P, Bayoumi A, Pierratos A, Redelmeier D: The quality of life and cost utility of home nocturnal and conventional incenter haemodialysis. Kidney International 2003, 64:1004-1011.
    • 24. Goldstein MK, Clarke AE, Michelson D, Garber AM, Bergen MR, Lenert LA: Developing and Testing a Multimedia Presentation of a Health-state Description. Med Decis Making 1994, 14:336-344.
    • 25. Damschroder L, Zikmund-Fisher B, Kulpa J, Ubel P: Considering adaptation in preference elicitations. Society for Medical Decision Making Annual Conference; San Francisco 2005.
    • 26. Damschroder L, Muroff J, Smith D, Ubel P: A reversal in the public/patient discrepancy: utility ratings for pain from pain patients are lower than from non-patients. Society for Medical Decision Making Annual Conference; San Francisco 2005.
    • 27. Damschroder L, Ubel P, Zikmund-Fisher B, Kim S, Johri M: A randomized trial of a web-based deliberation exercise: improving the quality of healthcare allocation preference surveys. Society for Medical Decision Making Annual Conference; San Francisco 2005.
    • 28. Baron J, Ubel P: Types of inconsistency in health-state utility judgements. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 2002, 89:1100-1118.
    • 29. Lenert LA, Goldstein MK, Bergen MR, Garber AM: The Effects of the Content of Health State Descriptions on the BetweenSubject Variability in Preferences. California, USA, Stanford University; 2005:1-21.
    • 30. Lenert LA, Ziegler J, Lee T, Unfred C, Mahmoud R: The Risks of Multimedia Methods: Effects of Actor's Race and Gender on Preferences for Health States. J of the American Informatics Assn 2000, 7:177-185.
    • 31. Marquet RL, Bartelds AI, van Noort SP, Koppeschaar CE, Paget J, Schellevis FG, van der ZJ: Internet-based monitoring of influenza-like illness (ILI) in the general population of the Netherlands during the 2003-2004 influenza season. BMC Public Health 2006, 6:242.
    • 32. Hubbard PA, Broome ME, Antia LA: Pain, coping, and disability in adolescents and young adults with cystic fibrosis: a Webbased study. Pediatr Nurs 2005, 31:82-86.
    • 33. Bowen A, Williams M, Horvath K: Using the internet to recruit rural MSM for HIV risk assessment: sampling issues. AIDS Behav 2004, 8:311-319.
    • 34. Fernandez MI, Varga LM, Perrino T, Collazo JB, Subiaul F, Rehbein A, Torres H, Castro M, Bowen GS: The Internet as recruitment tool for HIV studies: viable strategy for reaching at-risk Hispanic MSM in Miami? AIDS Care 2004, 16:953-963.
    • 35. Clarke G, Reid E, Eubanks D, O'Connor E, DeBar LL, Kelleher C, Lynch F, Nunley S: Overcoming depression on the Internet (ODIN): a randomized controlled trial of an Internet depression skills intervention program. J Med Internet Res 2002, 4:E14.
    • 36. Formica M, Kabbara K, Clark R, McAlindon T: Can clinical trials requiring frequent participant contact be conducted over the Internet? Results from an online randomized controlled trial evaluating a topical ointment for herpes labialis. J Med Internet Res 2004, 6:e6.
    • 37. Rhodes SD, Bowie DA, Hergenrather KC: Collecting behavioural data using the world wide web: considerations for researchers. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003, 57:68-73.
    • 38. Koo M, Skinner H: Challenges of internet recruitment: a case study with disappointing results. J Med Internet Res 2005, 7:e6.
    • 39. Formica M, Kabbara K, Clark R, McAlindon T: Can clinical trials requiring frequent participant contact be conducted over the Internet? Results from an online randomized controlled trial evaluating a topical ointment for herpes labialis. J Med Internet Res 2004, 6:e6.
    • 40. Clarke G, Reid E, Eubanks D, O'Connor E, DeBar LL, Kelleher C, Lynch F, Nunley S: Overcoming depression on the Internet (ODIN): a randomized controlled trial of an Internet depression skills intervention program. J Med Internet Res 2002, 4:E14.
    • 41. Scholle SH, Peele PB, Kelleher KJ, Frank E, Jansen-McWilliams L, Kupfer D: Effect of different recruitment sources on the composition of a bipolar disorder case registry. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2000, 35:220-227.
    • 42. Etter JF, Perneger TV: A comparison of cigarette smokers recruited through the Internet or by mail. Int J Epidemiol 2001, 30:521-525.
    • 43. Im EO, Chee W: Methodological issues in the recruitment of ethnic minority subjects to research via the Internet: a discussion paper. Int J Nurs Stud 2005, 42:923-929.
    • 44. Ross MW, Mansson SA, Daneback K, Cooper A, Tikkanen R: Biases in internet sexual health samples: comparison of an internet sexuality survey and a national sexual health survey in Sweden. Soc Sci Med 2005, 61:245-252.
    • 45. Index Multiple Deprivation 2000 [http://www.go-wm.gov.uk/ regionalintelligence/deprivation]
    • 46. Schunemann H, Stahl H, Austin P, Akl E, Armstrong D, Guyatt G: A comparison of narrative and table formats for presenting hypothetical health states to patients with gastrointestinal or pulmonary disease. Medical Decision Making 2004, 24:53-60.
    • 47. Dolan P, Gudex C: Time Preference, Duration and Health State Valuations. Health Economics 1995, 4:289-299.
    • 48. von Neumann J, Morganstern O: THeory of Games and Economic Behaviour 2nd edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1947.
    • 49. Lenert LA, Cher DJ, Goldstein MK, Bergen MR, Garber A: The Effect of Search Procedures on Utility Elicitations. Med Decis Making 1998, 18:76-83.
    • 50. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation: Summary Technical Report. Edinburgh, Scottish Executive 2004.
    • 51. Noble M, Wright G, Dibben C, Smith GAN, McLennan D, Anttila C, Barnes H, Mokhtar C, Noble S, Avenell D, Gardner J, Covizzi I, Lloyd M: Indices of Deprivation 2004: Report to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. London, Neighbourhood Renewal Unit; 2004.
    • 52. Reips UD: Standards for Internet-based experimenting. Exp Psychol 2002, 49:243-256.
    • 53. Bartlett C, Doyal L, Ebrahim S, DAvey P, Bachmann M, Egger M, Dieppe P: The causes and effects of socio-demographic exclusions from clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment 2005, 9:.
    • 54. Dolan P, Roberts J: To what extent can we explain time tradeoff values from other information about respondents? Soc Sci Med 2002, 54:919-929.
    • 55. Dolan P: Effect of age on health state valuations. J Health Serv Res Policy 2000, 5:17-21.
    • 56. Ashby J, Hanlon M, Buxton MJ: The time trade-off technique: how do the valuations of breast cancer patients compare to those of other groups? Quality of Life Research 1994, 3:257-265.
    • 57. Badia X, Roset M, Herdman M, Kind P: A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Medical Decision Making 2001, 21:7-16.
    • 58. Sims T, Garber A, Goldstein M: Does education really matter? Examining the role of education in health preferences among older adults. Society for Medical Decision Making, Annual Meeting; San Francisco 2005.
    • 59. Cykert S, Joines JD, Kissling G, Hansen CJ: Racial differences in patients' perceptions of debilitated health states. J Gen Intern Med 1999, 14:217-222.
    • 60. Dolan P: The Effect of Experience of Illness on Health State Valuations. J Clin Epidemiol 1996, 49:551-564.
    • 61. King JT, Tsevat J, Roberts MS: Positive Association between Current Health and Health Values for Hypothetical Disease States. Medical Decision Making 2004, 24:367-378.
    • 62. Lenert L, Treadwell JR, Schwartz C: Associations Between Health Status and Utilities Implications for Policy - Impact of Illness. Med Care 1999, 37:479-489.
    • 63. Rosen A, Tsai J, DOwns S: Variations in risk attitude across race, gender and education. Medical Decision Making 2003, 23:511-517.
    • 64. Woloshin S, Schwartz L, Moncur M, Gabriel S, Tosteson A: Assessing values for health: Numeracy matters. Med Decis Making 2001, 21:382-390.
    • 65. Gerson L, Ullah N, Hastie T, Triadafilopoulos G, Goldstein M: Patient derived health state utilities for gastroesophageal reflux disease. American Journal of Gastroenterology 2005, 100:524-533.
    • 66. Munakata J, Woolcott J, Anis A, Sculpher M, Yu W, Sanders G, et al.: Design of a prospective economic evaluation for a trinational clinical trial in HIV patients (OPTIMA). Society for Medical Decision Making Annual Conference; San Francisco 2005.
    • 67. Tosteson A, Kneeland T, Nease R, Sumner W: Automated Current Health Time-Trade-Off Assessments in Women's Health. Value in Health 2002, 5:98-105.
    • 68. Utility Assessment [http://araw.mede.uic.edu/cgi-bin/utility.cgi]
    • 69. Lenert LA, Sturley AE: Acceptability of Computerized Visual Analog Scale, Time Trade-off and Standard Gamble Rating Methods in Patients and the Public. AMI Association Proceedings 2001.
    • 70. Lenert L, Sturley A, Rupnow M: Toward improved methods for measurement of utility: automated repair of errors in elicitation. Medical Decision Making 2003, 23:67-75.
    • 71. Damschroder L, Baron J, Hershey J, Asch D, Jepson C, Ubel P: The validity of person tradeoff measurements: randomized trial of computer elicitation versus face-to-face interview. Medical Decision Making 2004, 24:170-180.
    • 72. Lenert L: Web-based Assessment of Patients' Preferences. California, USA, University of California, San Diego; 2006.
    • 73. Lenert L: Validity and interpretation of preference-based measures of quality of life. 2006.
    • 74. Stein K, Ratcliffe J, Milne R, Round A, Brazier J: Construct validity of utility data obtained from an internet panel of members of the public. Society for Medical Decision Making Annual Meeting Annual Meeting; Boston 2006.
    • 75. Harris Interactive [http://www.harrisinteractive.com]. accessed December 2005
    • 76. YouGov: Polling for a Profit [http://www.yougov.com/corpo rate/pdf/analystYGFloat_1.pdf]
    • 77. Baker K, Curtice J, Sparrow N: Internet Poll Trial: Research Report. London, ICM Research; 2003.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article