Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2015; 54(02): 156-163
DOI: 10.3414/ME14-01-0021
Original Articles
Schattauer GmbH

UceWeb: a Web-based Collaborative Tool for Collecting and Sharing Quality of Life Data[*]

E. Parimbelli
1   Department of Electrical, Computer and Biomedical Engineering, University of Pavia, Italy
,
L. Sacchi
1   Department of Electrical, Computer and Biomedical Engineering, University of Pavia, Italy
,
S. Rubrichi
1   Department of Electrical, Computer and Biomedical Engineering, University of Pavia, Italy
,
A. Mazzanti
2   IRCCS Salvatore Maugeri Foundation, Pavia, Italy
,
S. Quaglini
1   Department of Electrical, Computer and Biomedical Engineering, University of Pavia, Italy
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received: 07 February 2014

accepted: 01 October 2014

Publication Date:
22 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives: This work aims at building a platform where quality-of-life data, namely utility coefficients, can be elicited not only for immediate use, but also systematically stored together with patient profiles to build a public repository to be further exploited in studies on specific target populations (e.g. cost/utility analyses).

Methods: We capitalized on utility theory and previous experience to define a set of desirable features such a tool should show to facilitate sound elicitation of quality of life. A set of visualization tools and algorithms has been developed to this purpose. To make it easily accessible for potential users, the software has been designed as a web application. A pilot validation study has been performed on 20 atrial fibrillation patients.

Results: A collaborative platform, UceWeb, has been developed and tested. It implements the standard gamble, time trade-off and rating-scale utility elicitation methods. It allows doctors and patients to choose the mode of interaction to maximize patients’ comfort in answering difficult questions. Every utility elicitation may contribute to the growth of the repository.

Conclusion: UceWeb can become a unique source of data allowing researchers both to perform more reliable comparisons among healthcare interventions and build statistical models to gain deeper insight into quality of life data.

Keywords

Utility elicitation - quality of life - web-application - collaborative platform - repository

* Supplementary material published on our web-site www.methods-online.com


 

  • References

  • 1 Gold MR, Stevenson D, Fryback DG. Similarities and Differences in Summary Measures of Population Health. Annu Rev Public Health 2002; 23: 115-134.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Reed Johnson F. Editorial: Moving the QALY Forward or Just Stuck in Traffic?. Value In Health 2009; 12 (Suppl. 01) Suppl S27-S30.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kind P, Elston Lafata J, Matuszewski K, Raisch D. BSPharm. The Use of QALYs in Clinical and Patient Decision-Making: Issues and Prospects. Value In Health 2009; 12 (Suppl. 01) Suppl S27-S30.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Gold MR, Stevenson D, Fryback DG. HALYS and QALYS and DALYS, Oh My: similarities and differences in summary measures of population Health. Annual Review of Public Health 2002; 23 (01) 115-134.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Sacchi L, Rubrichi S, Rognoni C. et al. From Decision to Shared-Decision: Introducing Patients’ PReferences in Clinical Decision Analysis - A Case Study in Thromboembolic Risk Prevention. In: Proceedings of 14th Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, Murcia. 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Gerzeli S, Rognoni C, Quaglini S, Cavallo MC, Cremonesi G, Papi A. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of beclomethasone/formoterol versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in patients with moderate to severe asthma. Clin Drug Investig 2012; 32 (04) 253-265.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ryder HF, McDonough C, Tosteson ANA, Lurie JD. Decision Analysis and Cost-effectiveness Analysis. Semin Spine Surg 2009; 21 (04) 216-222.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Prosser LA, Grosse SD, Wittenberg E. Health utility elicitation: is there still a role for direct methods?. Pharmacoeconomics 2012; 30 (02) 83-86.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Gafni A. The Standard Gamble method: what is being measured and how it is interpreted. Health Services Research 1994; 29: 207-224.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton university press; 1947
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual Analog Scales Do They Have a Role in the Measurement of PReferences for Health States?. Medical Decision Making 2001; 21 (04) 329-334.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R, Klein BE, Dorn N, Peterson K, Martin PA. The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Medical Decision Making 1993; 13 (02) 89-102.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Sumner W, Nease R, Littenberg B. U-tier: A utility assessment tool. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care. Washington, DC: 01991 710-715.
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Garber AM, Sims TL, Miller DE, Mahlow PT, Bravata DM, Goldstein MK. Multimedia quality of life assessment: advances with FLAIR. In: Proceedings of the American Medical Informatics Association Annual Symposium (02005).
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lenert LA, Sturley A, Watson ME. iMPACT3: Internet-Based Development and Administration of Utility Elicitation Protocols. Medical Decision Making 2002; 22: 464-474.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Bayoumi A, Dale W. ProSPEQT: a new program for computer-assisted utility elicitations. Poster presented at: Annual Meeting of Society for Medical Decision Making (02004).
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Standards for privacy of individually identifiable health information. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, DHHS. Final rule. Fed Regist 2000; 65 (250) 82462-82829.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ancker JS, Senathirajah Y, Kukafka R. et al. Design Features of Graphs in Health Risk Communication: A Systematic Review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13: 608-618.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ancker JS, Weber EU, Kukafka R. Effect of Arrangement of Stick Figures on Estimates of Proportion in Risk Graphics. Medical Decision Making 2011; 31 (01) 143-150.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Blumenschein K, Johannesson M. An experimental test of question framing in health state utility assessment. Health Policy 1998; 45: 187-193.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Cormen TH, Leiserson CE, Rivest RL, Stein C. Introduction to algorithms. MIT Press; Cambridge: 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Ryan M, Watson V, Amaya-Amaya M. Methodological issues in the monetary valuation of benefits in healthcare. Expert Reviews in Pharmacoeconomic Outcomes Research 2003; 3 (06) 717-727.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Malý M, Vondra V. Generic versus disease-specific instruments in quality-of-life assessment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Methods Inf Med 2006; 45 (02) 211-215.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Spertus J, Dorian P, Bubien R. et al. Development and validation of the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life (AFEQT) Questionnaire in patients with atrial fibrillation. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2011; 4: 15-25.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Morimoto T, Fukui T. Utilities measured by rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble: review and reference for health care professionals. J Epidemiol 2002; 12 (02) 160-178.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Iida N, Koyama W, Kohashi N, Hayashi T. Significance of measuring the quality of life in health evaluation. Methods Inf Med 2000; 39 (03) 213-216.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Li I, Medynskiy Y, Froehlich J, Larsen J. Personal Informatics in Practice: Improving Quality of Life Through Data. CHI ’12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar