Economic evaluations require the use of a preference-based measure of health states to correctly value changes in health [ 13- 15].
Mapping is the second best alternative to the direct use of a preference-based measure because mapped estimates can yield large errors, particularly when mapping from condition-specific to generic preference-based measures [ 18].
The use of a patient preference design is unusual, but will allow us to explore how preference influences response to a medication.
In the corporate world, for instance, personnel supervisors are increasingly making use of a behavioral preference test called the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), which measures intuitive skills along with other personality traits.
One trial looking at the use of a patient preference design found no difference in numbers recruited to the randomised arms of the trial [ 7].
In the absence of a single ideal instrument for CUA to assess the cost effectiveness of service innovations in the aged care sector, this review recommends the use of a generic preference based instrument, the EQ-5D to obtain QALYs in combination with the ICECAP-O or the ASCOT to facilitate the measurement and valuation of broader quality of life benefits as defined by older people.
While most such possible world semantics rely on a single ordering, we investigate the use of an additional preference ordering representing, for instance, the epistemic context the agent finds itself in to guide the process of belief change.
However, the specific contribution of HRQL to quality of life remains unknown [ 5] given HRQL is "the subjective assessment of the impact of disease and treatment across the physical, psychological, social, and somatic domains of functioning and well-being [ 6]." The use of a generic, preference-based instrument is one method commonly used to assess HRQL [ 7].
These findings are in agreement with findings from similar investigations, in particular an analysis of the CHOICE study revealed that the perceived ease of use of a method (including preferences in dosing frequency) is often more important than considerations strictly related to efficacy, tolerability and general health benefits/risks [ 11].
On the other hand, there are also important differences: disagreements about the use of racial preferences (a k a affirmative action), whether actual discriminatory intent needs to be shown, whether the focus should be on nondiscrimination and equal opportunity versus racial balancing and equal results.
Although the timing of female receptivity post-parturition is unknown in these skinks, best attempts were made to maximise the time between parturition and use of a female in the preference trials.
