Valuing health states: A comparison of methods
In eliciting health state valuations, two widely used methods are the standard gamble (SG) and the time trade off (TTO). Both methods make assumptions about individual preferences that are too restrictive to allow them to act as perfect proxies for utility. Therefore, a choice between them might instead be made on empirical grounds. This paper reports on a study which compared a "props" (using specifically-designed boards) and a "no props" (using self-completion booklets) variant of each method. The results suggested that both non props variants might be susceptable to framing effects and that TTP props outperformed SG props.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.