The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Measuring Preferences for Health States Worse than Death
Abstract
Previous research indicates that persons assigning values to ranges of health states consider some states to be worse than death. In a study of decisions regarding life-sustaining treat ments, the authors adapted and assessed existing methods for their ability to identify and quantify preferences for health states near to or worse than death in a population of well adults and nursing home residents. The cognitive burdens involved in these decisions were also evaluated. Hypothetical health states based on six attributes of functional status were constructed to describe severe constant pain, dementia, and coma. The methods of rank order, category scaling, time tradeoff, and standard gamble were adapted to quantify states worse than death. Cognitive burden was assessed using completion rates, interviewer as sessments, respondents' self-reporting, and investigators' evaluations. For both respondent groups, all methods showed similar degrees of cognitive burden for those able to complete the tasks and were similar in their ability to identify and quantify preferences. The majority of nursing home residents, however, were unable to complete or comprehend the mea surement tasks. Most respondents evaluated their current health and severe constant pain as better than death; dementia and coma were more often considered equal to or worse than death. These results indicate that respondents can and do evaluate some health states as worse than death. The authors recommend systematic inclusion of states worse than death to describe a more complete range of preference values and routine assessment of the cognitive burdens of assessment techniques to evaluate methodologies. Keywords: health status measurement; preference weights; utility measurement; health-state prefer ences; cognitive burden. (Med Decis Making 1994;14:9-18)
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
(1997) · doi:10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002 · Cited by 4,544
The Role of Cost-effectiveness Analysis in Health and Medicine
Russell, L. B. (1996) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540140060028 · Cited by 1,167
Furlong, W. J., Feeny, D. H., Torrance, G. W., & Barr, R. D. (2001) · Annals of Medicine · doi:10.3109/07853890109002092 · Cited by 751
Nates, J. L., Nunnally, M., Kleinpell, R., Blosser, S., Goldner, J., Birriel, B., Fowler, C. S., Byrum, D., Miles, W. S., Bailey, H., et al. (2016) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000001856 · Cited by 683
Haffner, S. M. (1999) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.159.22.2661 · Cited by 441
Metadata
- Authors
- Patrick, D. L., Starks, H. E., Cain, K. C., Uhlmann, R. F., & Pearlman, R. A.
- Venue
- Medical Decision Making
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1994-02
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 9-18
- ISSN
- 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1552-681X
- OpenAlex
- W2151207657
- Cited by
- 364
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 31.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring Preferences for Health States Worse than Death. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0272989x9401400102
- The paper
- Patrick, D. L., Starks, H. E., Cain, K. C., Uhlmann, R. F., & Pearlman, R. A. (1994). Measuring Preferences for Health States Worse than Death. Medical Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x9401400102
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.