A comparison of different strategies to collect standard gamble utilities.

Objective: The authors performed a methodological comparison of the usual standard gamble with methods that could also be used in mailed questionnaires.

Methods: Ninety-two diabetic patients valued diabetes-related health states twice. In face-to-face interviews, the authors used an iterative standard gamble (ISG) in which the probabilities were varied in a ping-pong manner and a self-completion method (SC) with top-down titration as search procedure (SC-TD) in 2 independent subsamples of 46 patients. Three months later, all patients received a mailed questionnaire in which the authors used the self-completion method with bottom-up (SCBU) and SC-TD as search procedures.

Results: ISG and SCTD showed feasibility and consistency in the interviews. The ISG resulted in significantly higher utilities than the SC-TD. Two thirds of the mailed questionnaires provided useful results indicating some problems of feasibility. Utilities measured by SC-BU and SC-TD did not differ significantly showing procedural invariance. Further, patients indicated ambivalence when given the choice not to definitely state their preferences.

Conclusions: The results show that different strategies to collect standard gamble utilities can yield different results. Compared with the usually applied ISG, the SC method is feasible in interviews and provides a consistent alternative that is less costly when used in mailed questionnaires, although its practicability has to be improved in this later setting.