Literature DB >> 10694759

Are preferences over health states complete?

A Shiell1, J Seymour, P Hawe, S Cameron.   

Abstract

Most applied work in health economics accepts, if only implicitly, the axiom of completeness. Preferences over health states or health services are assumed to be well formed. They are effectively 'data' waiting to be collected. An alternative perspective suggests that values are initially incomplete and are constructed rather than just revealed in the process of answering choice-related questions such as willingness to pay or standard gambles. What might appear as measurement error may, therefore, be a more deliberate process of reflection and deliberation. This paper reports on a study that assessed the completeness of health preferences. The results show a mixed pattern. For most of the sample, values were stable over repeat administration, suggesting completeness. However, one-third of participants deliberately changed their answers and suggested that the interview process had forced them to think about their values more deeply. While it is premature to draw conclusions from this small sample, the suggestion is that completeness cannot be taken for granted. Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10694759     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(200001)9:1<47::aid-hec485>3.0.co;2-l

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  10 in total

1.  The stability of utility scores: test-retest reliability and the interpretation of utility scores in elective total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  D Feeny; C M Blanchard; J L Mahon; R Bourne; C Rorabeck; L Stitt; S Webster-Bogaert
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  On the meaningfulness of testing preference axioms in stated preference discrete choice experiments.

Authors:  Jens Leth Hougaard; Tue Tjur; Lars Peter Osterdal
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2011-05-05

3.  Challenges in measuring the societal value of orphan drugs: insights from a canadian stated preference survey.

Authors:  Nick Dragojlovic; Shirin Rizzardo; Nick Bansback; Craig Mitton; Carlo A Marra; Larry D Lynd
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Priority setting and patient adaptation to disability and illness: outcomes of a qualitative study.

Authors:  John McKie; Rosalind Hurworth; Bradley Shrimpton; Jeff Richardson; Catherine Bell
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2014-09

5.  Reasons for being in favour of or against genome modification: a survey of the Dutch general public.

Authors:  S Hendriks; N A A Giesbertz; A L Bredenoord; S Repping
Journal:  Hum Reprod Open       Date:  2018-05-16

6.  Impact of discussion on preferences elicited in a group setting.

Authors:  Ken Stein; Julie Ratcliffe; Ali Round; Ruairidh Milne; John E Brazier
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2006-03-29       Impact factor: 3.186

7.  Treatment costs and priority setting in health care: A qualitative study.

Authors:  John McKie; Bradley Shrimpton; Jeff Richardson; Rosalind Hurworth
Journal:  Aust New Zealand Health Policy       Date:  2009-05-06

8.  Individual quality of life: adaptive conjoint analysis as an alternative for direct weighting?

Authors:  A M Stiggelbout; E de Vogel-Voogt; E M Noordijk; T P M Vliet Vlieland
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Development and preliminary user testing of the DCIDA (Dynamic computer interactive decision application) for 'nudging' patients towards high quality decisions.

Authors:  Nick Bansback; Linda C Li; Larry Lynd; Stirling Bryan
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 2.796

10.  A new method for valuing health: directly eliciting personal utility functions.

Authors:  Nancy J Devlin; Koonal K Shah; Brendan J Mulhern; Krystallia Pantiri; Ben van Hout
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2018-07-20
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.