title: Quantifying the utility of taking pills for preventing adverse health outcomes: a cross-sectional survey.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The utility value attributed to taking pills for prevention can have a major effect on the cost-effectiveness of interventions, but few published studies have systematically quantified this value. We sought to quantify the utility value of taking pills used for prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD).
  
  
  METHODS
  Cross-sectional survey.
  
  
  METHODS
  Central North Carolina.
  
  
  METHODS
  708 healthcare employees aged 18 years and older.
  
  
  METHODS
  Utility values for taking 1 pill/day, assessed using time trade-off, modified standard gamble and willingness-to-pay methods.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Mean age of respondents was 43 years (19-74). The majority of the respondents were female (83%) and Caucasian (80%). Most (80%) took at least 2 pills/day. Mean utility values for taking 1 pill/day using the time trade-off method were: 0.9972 (95% CI 0.9962 to 0.9980). Values derived from the standard gamble and willingness-to-pay methods were 0.9967 (0.9954 to 0.9979) and 0.9989 (95% CI 0.9986 to 0.9991), respectively. Utility values varied little across characteristics such as age, sex, race, education level or number of pills taken per day.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The utility value of taking pills daily in order to prevent an adverse CVD health outcome is approximately 0.997.
authors.affiliation: Health Care and Prevention MD-MPH Program, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine and Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
authors.forename: Robert
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Hutchins
authors.affiliation: Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
authors.forename: Michael P
authors.initials: MP
authors.lastname: Pignone
authors.affiliation: Health Care and Prevention MD-MPH Program, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine and Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
authors.forename: Stacey L
authors.initials: SL
authors.lastname: Sheridan
authors.affiliation: Health Care and Prevention MD-MPH Program, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine and Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA Department of Family Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
authors.forename: Anthony J
authors.initials: AJ
authors.lastname: Viera
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001294:Attitude to Health; D002317:Cardiovascular Agents / Q000627:therapeutic use; D002318:Cardiovascular Diseases / Q000517:prevention & control*; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D004334:Drug Administration Schedule; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009657:North Carolina; D010349:Patient Compliance; D004364:Pharmaceutical Preparations / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D011315:Preventive Medicine; D011788:Quality of Life; D055815:Young Adult
chemical_list: D002317:Cardiovascular Agents; D004364:Pharmaceutical Preparations
keywords: cost-effectiveness; medical decision making; utility analysis