PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 2247189

[Utility assessment in clinical decision making].

C G Verhoef·A L Verbeek·L J Stalpers·W A van Daal
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In clinical decision analysis a quantitative value is attached to a longevity or a life quality by means of utility assessment. The actual value of the utility can determine the result of the decision analysis. In this article utility theory is briefly discussed. Four kinds of utility tests (direct scaling methods, the basic reference gamble, the time trade-off test and additive conjoint measurement) are introduced on the basis of an example and their pros and cons are discussed. It is concluded that additive conjoint measurement has the best formal infrastructure, but that the test method is not always easily applicable.

Explore related subjects

Choice BehaviorDecision Support TechniquesDiagnosisHumansPatientsPsychological TestsQuality of LifeEnglish AbstractJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C G Verhoef, A L Verbeek, L J Stalpers, W A van Daal. 1990-11-10. [Utility assessment in clinical decision making].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2247189/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

A compensation election for binary social choice.

We report experimental results examining the properties of a bidding mechanism, the "Compensation Election," which is designed to implement a simple binary choice between two options. We may think of the group decision problem as a choice between a new rule and the status quo. The rule and the status quo are each common outcomes that apply across all individuals, but the value or cost that they induce on each individual differs according to each individual's circumstances: some gain, some lose, and others are unaffected by a change to the new from the old. Rather than casting votes, each subject submits a bid reflecting his willingness to pay to induce the group to select one option and the amount he wishes to be paid if the alternative option is selected. The Compensation Election chooses the option that receives the highest sum of bids. We find that, although the Compensation Election allows subjects to strategically bid above their value (or even for the option they do not prefer), such behavior is not the norm. We also find that subjects' bids more truthfully reveal their values when there are more bidders in the election.

Choice Behavior↗
PubMed2007

The effects of expanding patient choice of provider on waiting times: evidence from a policy experiment.

Long waiting times for inpatient treatment in the UK National Health Service have been a source of popular and political concern, and therefore a target for policy initiatives. In the London Patient Choice Project, patients at risk of breaching inpatient waiting time targets were offered the choice of an alternative hospital with a guaranteed shorter wait. This paper develops a simple theoretical model of the effect of greater patient choice on waiting times. It then uses a difference in difference econometric methodology to estimate the impact of the London choice project on ophthalmology waiting times. In line with the model predictions, the project led to shorter average waiting times in the London region and a convergence in waiting times amongst London hospitals.

Choice Behavior↗