Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Appendix C: Measuring the Impact of Worrying About STIs on Quality of Life
Pages 687-700

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 687...
... One tool is the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit, which examines utility weights across varied domains of social care–related QoL and has been extended for use in carers (Malley et al., 2012; Rand et al., 2015; Towers et al., 2016)
From page 688...
... method, a standard technique for measuring HRQL (Muennig and Bounthavong, 2016; Torrance and Feeny, 1989) that allows us to create utility weights for a state in which people have current levels of STI risk compared to a state with no STI risk.
From page 689...
... Only workers with 98 percent quality ratings and who had successfully 3 The pilot survey questions are available by request via the project Public Access File online at https://www8.nationalacademies.org/pa/managerequest.aspx? key=HMDBPH-18-11 (accessed November 16, 2020)
From page 690...
... This helps ensure that the sample includes people who intend to provide deliberate and thoughtful responses. In addition, surveys that exhibited patterns consistent with "clicking through" were dropped -- some people always clicked the same response in the TTO exercise, some reported a number of partners that was illogical, and some reported indifference between painful cancer and perfect health.
From page 691...
... 90.2 (0.977) Number of casual partners 0.277 (0.038)
From page 692...
... -- but also for "painful cancer." Respondents completed TTO exercises that compared having the illness versus perfect health and their
From page 693...
... Table C-4 shows the average utility weight for each illness category compared to perfect health. Painful cancer, the most severe of the illnesses presented, had the lowest utility weight (0.296)
From page 694...
... While the analysis shows the level of STI worry appears to be most predictive of STI risk utility weights, other characteristics were found to be associated with these weights (see Figure C-4) ; people who had sex without a condom with a casual sex partner in the last year had lower weights than those who did not (0.85 versus 0.90)
From page 695...
... Validation of TTO Measure 8 6 4 2 0 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 STI Risk Prefererence Weight TTO Measure Validation Measure FIGURE C-2  Distribution of STI risk utility weight. NOTE: The validation measure asks people directly how many years they would be willing to give up if they had no STI risk in their remaining years (assuming they have 20 years remaining)
From page 696...
... Because the sample is not representative of the U.S. popu lation, we used its applied utility weights that correspond to each level of worry (see Figure C-3)
From page 697...
... TABLE C-5  Utility Weights for Current Risk of Getting Illness Versus No Risk Utility Weight 95% Confidence (average) Interval Risk of painful cancer 0.769 0.755–0.782 Risk of STI 0.890 0.879–0.901 Risk of HIV 0.871 0.859–0.884 Risk of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis 0.888 0.877–0.900 Risk of HPV 0.913 0.902–0.923
From page 698...
... (5) Level of Worry About Getting Share Population Utility Weight for QALYs Under QALYs Lost Due an STI Next 12 Months (from KFF Survey)
From page 699...
... However, even if the estimates are inflated, it would have to be by orders of magnitude for the impact of worrying about STIs to cease to be meaningful. For example, even if the average utility weight for STI risk was 0.99, this would still result in more than 2 million QALYs lost each year.
From page 700...
... 2012. Disease specific patient reported outcome tools for systemic lupus erythematosus.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.