Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2019; 58(01): 024-030
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1692416
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Eliciting and Exploiting Utility Coefficients in an Integrated Environment for Shared Decision-Making

Elisa Salvi
1   Department of Electrical, Computer and Biomedical Engineering, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy
,
Enea Parimbelli
2   MET Research Group, Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
,
Silvana Quaglini
1   Department of Electrical, Computer and Biomedical Engineering, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy
,
Lucia Sacchi
1   Department of Electrical, Computer and Biomedical Engineering, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

10 October 2018

15 April 2019

Publication Date:
05 July 2019 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background In shared decision-making, a key step is quantifying the patient's preferences in relation to all the possible outcomes of the compared clinical options. According to utility theory, this can be done by eliciting utility coefficients (UCs) from the patient. The obtained UCs are then used in decision models (e.g., decision trees). The elicitation process involves the choice of one or more elicitation methods, which is not easy for decision-makers who are unfamiliar with the theoretical framework. Moreover, to our knowledge there are no tools that integrate functionalities for UC elicitation with functionalities to run decision models that include the elicited values.

Objectives The first aim of this work is to provide decision support to the clinicians for the selection of the elicitation method. The second aim is to bridge the gap between UC elicitation and the exploitation of those UCs in shared decision-making.

Methods Based on evidence from the utility theory literature, we developed a set of production rules that recommend the optimal elicitation method(s) according to the patient's profile and health state. We then complemented this decision support tool with a functionality for quantifying and running decision trees defined through the commercial software TreeAge.

Results The result is an integrated framework for shared decision-making. Given the primary aim of this work, we focus for result evaluation on the elicitation tool. It was tested on 51 volunteers, who expressed UCs for four purposely selected health states. The insights on the collected UCs validated the rules included in the decision support system. The usability of the tool was assessed through the System Usability Scale, obtaining positive results.

Conclusion We developed an integrated environment to facilitate shared decision-making in the clinical practice. The next step is the validation of the entire framework and its use besides shared decision-making. As a matter of fact, it may also be exploited to target cost-utility analysis to a specific patient population.

Keywords

shared decision-making - decision support system - utility coefficients

Supplementary Material

 

  • References

  • 1 Légaré F, Thompson-Leduc P. Twelve myths about shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns 2014; 96 (03) 281-286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40 (06) 593-603
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kind P, Lafata JE, Matuszewski K, Raisch D. The use of QALYs in clinical and patient decision-making: issues and prospects. Value Health 2009; 12 (Suppl. 01) S27-S30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: the basics. Value Health 2009; 12 (Suppl. 01) S5-S9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 McTaggart-Cowan H. Elicitation of informed general population health state utility values: a review of the literature. Value Health 2011; 14 (08) 1153-1157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2013. . Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK395867/ . Accessed August 21, 2018
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states?. Med Decis Making 2001; 21 (04) 329-334
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Brazier J, Dolan P. Evidence of preference construction in a comparison of variants of the standard gamble method. MPRA Paper 29760, University Library of Munich, Germany; 2005
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kaiser K, Cheng WY, Jensen S. , et al. Development of a shared decision-making tool to assist patients and clinicians with decisions on oral anticoagulant treatment for atrial fibrillation. Curr Med Res Opin 2015; 31 (12) 2261-2272
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sims TL, Garber AM, Miller DE, Mahlow PT, Bravata DM, Goldstein MK. Multimedia quality of life assessment: advances with FLAIR. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2005; 694-698
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bayoumi AM, Dale W. PROSPEQT. A new program for computer-assisted utility elicitations. Available at: https://smdm.confex.com/smdm/2004ga/techprogram/P1523.HTM . Accessed March 16, 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Goldstein MK, Miller DE, Davies S, Garber AM. Quality of life assessment software for computer-inexperienced older adults: multimedia utility elicitation for activities of daily living. Proc AMIA Symp 2002; 295-299
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Thomson R, Robinson A, Greenaway J, Lowe P. ; DARTS Team. Development and description of a decision analysis based decision support tool for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Qual Saf Health Care 2002; 11 (01) 25-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Parimbelli E, Sacchi L, Rubrichi S, Mazzanti A, Quaglini S. UceWeb: a Web-based collaborative tool for collecting and sharing quality of life data. Methods Inf Med 2015; 54 (02) 156-163
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Bansod A, Skoczen S, Lenert LA. IMPACT4: a framework for rapid, modular construction of web-based patient decision support systems and preference measurement tools. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2003; 782
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV. Clinical Decision Analysis. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 1980
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Boye KS, Matza LS, Feeny DH, Johnston JA, Bowman L, Jordan JB. Challenges to time trade-off utility assessment methods: when should you consider alternative approaches?. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2014; 14 (03) 437-450
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Wright DR, Wittenberg E, Swan JS, Miksad RA, Prosser LA. Methods for measuring temporary health States for cost-utility analyses. Pharmacoeconomics 2009; 27 (09) 713-723
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Buckingham JK, Birdsall J, Douglas JG. Comparing three versions of the time tradeoff: time for a change?. Med Decis Making 1996; 16 (04) 335-347
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Leeyaphan C, Wanitphakdeedecha R, Manuskiatti W, Kulthanan K. Measuring melasma patients' quality of life using willingness to pay and time trade-off methods in Thai population. BMC Dermatol 2011; 11 (01) 16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Schiffner R, Schiffner-Rohe J, Gerstenhauer M, Hofstädter F, Landthaler M, Stolz W. Willingness to pay and time trade-off: sensitive to changes of quality of life in psoriasis patients?. Br J Dermatol 2003; 148 (06) 1153-1160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Heintz E, Krol M, Levin L-Å. The impact of patients' subjective life expectancy on time tradeoff valuations. Med Decis Making 2013; 33 (02) 261-270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 O'Brien B, Viramontes JL. Willingness to pay: a valid and reliable measure of health state preference?. Med Decis Making 1994; 14 (03) 289-297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hollman C, Paulden M, Pechlivanoglou P, McCabe C. A comparison of four software programs for implementing decision analytic cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 2017; 35 (08) 817-830
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Peleg M, Shahar Y, Quaglini S. , et al. Assessment of a personalized and distributed patient guidance system. Int J Med Inform 2017; 101: 108-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Affairs AS for P. System Usability Scale (SUS). 2013 ; Available at: https://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/methods/system-usability-scale.html . Accessed October 12, 2016
    PubMed
  • 27 Stoniute J, Mott DJ, Shen J. Challenges in valuing temporary health states for economic evaluation: a review of empirical applications of the chained time trade-off method. Value Health 2018; 21 (05) 605-611
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Technical report: Empirical comparison of visual analog scales and three versions of the time trade-off. A study on cochlear implantation; Available at: http://www.cisiad.uned.es/techreports/vas-3tto.pdf . Accessed May 29, 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Arnold D, Girling A, Stevens A, Lilford R. Comparison of direct and indirect methods of estimating health state utilities for resource allocation: review and empirical analysis. BMJ 2009; 339: b2688
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Arias M, Díez FJ. Cost-effectiveness analysis with influence diagrams. Methods Inf Med 2015; 54 (04) 353-358
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Arias M, Díez FJ. The problem of embedded decision nodes in cost-effectiveness decision trees. Pharmacoeconomics 2014; 32 (11) 1141-1145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K. , et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making--an introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA emerging good practices task force. Value Health 2016; 19 (01) 1-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Wagner M, Samaha D, Khoury H. , et al. Development of a framework based on reflective MCDA to support patient-clinician shared decision-making: the case of the management of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NET) in the United States. Adv Ther 2018; 35 (01) 81-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar