PMID- 12859590
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20030908
LR  - 20191210
IS  - 1098-3015 (Print)
IS  - 1098-3015 (Linking)
VI  - 6
IP  - 4
DP  - 2003 Jul-Aug
TI  - Assessment of respondent acceptability of preference measures: discriminatory 
      power of graphic positioning scale versus traditional scaling measures.
PG  - 483-93
AB  - OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare discriminatory power of two 
      different measures-graphic positioning scale (GPS) versus traditional scale 
      (TS)-in assessing respondent acceptability of three preference measures: visual 
      analog scale (VAS), standard gamble (SG), and willingness to pay (WTP). METHODS: 
      Two face-to-face interviews were conducted at least 1 week apart in a convenience 
      sample of women aged 22 to 50 years with no history of breast cancer or cancer 
      requiring chemotherapy. Study participation required completion of two surveys: 
      one evaluating health preferences for an acute condition (chemotherapy-induced 
      nausea and vomiting) and one evaluating a chronic condition (breast cancer). Data 
      were collected from March 2000 to June 2000 at Ohio State University. Respondents 
      were randomized to either GPS or TS surveys. Data analysis was a two-step 
      process. First, a four-way multivariate repeated-measures analysis of variance 
      (MANOVA) was conducted to assess respondent acceptability of three-preference 
      metrics-VAS, SG, and WTP-in health-care decision making. Each of the four 
      dependent variables, difficulty, clarity, reasonableness, and comfort in use in 
      decision making, was measured on 9-point Likert scale. Second, a mixed design 
      univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed for each dependent variable 
      to optimize MANOVA analysis. Univariate ANOVAs, 2 x (2 x 3), were composed of 
      three independent variables: assessment (GPS/TS), condition (acute and chronic), 
      and preferences (VAS, SG, WTP). RESULTS: Of 126 respondents, 119 were usable and 
      complete. MANOVA results showed (P <.05) for two main effects, condition (F4,114 
      = 6.375) and preferences (F8,110 = 9.290), and two significant interactions, 
      condition x assessment (F4,114 = 3.421) and condition x preferences (F8,110 = 
      2.087). CONCLUSION: GPS has higher discriminatory power than TS in assessing 
      respondent attitudes toward health preference measures. Results showed that 
      respondents had more difficulty and less comfort when making decisions for 
      chronic than for acute conditions. Results also show that respondents regard WTP 
      as a more reasonable decision-making tool when assessing acute interventions in 
      preference to SG and vice versa for chronic conditions. Of VAS, SG, and WTP 
      methods, VAS was perceived as being the easiest to understand. These results can 
      be explained by direct versus indirect comparisons made with GPS and TS methods, 
      respectively.
FAU - Franic, Duska M
AU  - Franic DM
AD  - College of Pharmacy, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-2354, USA. 
      dfranic@rx.uga.edu
FAU - Pathak, Dev S
AU  - Pathak DS
LA  - eng
PT  - Comparative Study
PT  - Evaluation Study
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PL  - United States
TA  - Value Health
JT  - Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics 
      and Outcomes Research
JID - 100883818
RN  - 0 (Antineoplastic Agents)
SB  - IM
MH  - Adult
MH  - Analysis of Variance
MH  - Antineoplastic Agents/adverse effects
MH  - *Attitude to Health
MH  - Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy
MH  - *Decision Support Techniques
MH  - *Discriminant Analysis
MH  - Female
MH  - Health Care Surveys/*instrumentation
MH  - Humans
MH  - Middle Aged
MH  - Midwestern United States
MH  - Multivariate Analysis
MH  - Nausea/chemically induced
MH  - Patient Satisfaction/*statistics & numerical data
MH  - Vomiting/chemically induced
EDAT- 2003/07/16 05:00
MHDA- 2003/09/10 05:00
CRDT- 2003/07/16 05:00
PHST- 2003/07/16 05:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2003/09/10 05:00 [medline]
PHST- 2003/07/16 05:00 [entrez]
AID - S1098-3015(10)60160-X [pii]
AID - 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.64221.x [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Value Health. 2003 Jul-Aug;6(4):483-93. doi: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.64221.x.