Visual Analogue Scale and standard gamble techniques were used to measure utilities.
We have also demonstrated that these robust utilities, either derived by VAS or by standard gamble techniques, generally do not vary significantly by patient and clinical characteristics.
It is now evident, for example, that VAS-derived utility weights differ from those elicited using the time trade-off or standard gamble techniques [ 5, 6].
Both also have differences in the valuation methods used; the EQ-5D has been valued using time trade-off, while the SF-6D is a derivative of the SF-36 and was valued using standard gamble techniques [ 28].
One obvious approach would be to compare the utilities derived from these generic instruments with those elicited directly from patients, or the community, using such methods as time-trade-off or standard gamble techniques.
However, with both VAS and standard gamble techniques, no difference was found between own current health state and the disease free health state nor between the health states recovering at home and hospitalisation without complications.
The Short Form 6-dimensions (SF-6D) is derived from the Short Form 36 (SF-36), a generic measure of HRQOL, has also been converted into an HU based upon standard gamble techniques.
The subjects completed a one-hour interview with one of two trained study nurses during which their driving restriction preferences (utilities) were determined using a modified standard gamble technique.
Fifteen non-health professionals was recruited and familiarised with the standard gamble technique.
Trained interviewers used the standard gamble technique, which involves making decisions under conditions of uncertainty (Torrance, 1986).
