Impact of the recall period on measuring health utilities for acute events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of healthcare interventions on health utility values is most frequently measured using a preference-based instrument. Each of the available instruments instructs the respondent to report their health status over different recall periods ranging from the current day to the past month. In an ongoing randomised controlled trial in patients with advanced HIV disease, the impact of using a preference-based instrument with a 1-week recall period vs a 1-day recall period (e.g. today) for capturing recently resolved serious adverse events was measured. The results suggest that the instrument with a 1-week recall period gave lower utility values for recently resolved events in comparison with the instrument with a 1-day recall period. A plausible interpretation of these results is that the recall period was adhered to; for example, patients ignored the impact of recently resolved events in their response if the questionnaire asked them only about their health today. While there are limitations to our study, we believe further consideration should be given to the recall period used for preference-based instruments, and future research should examine other patient groups using a single instrument with multiple recall periods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".