Literature DB >> 10929848

Population-based time preferences for future health outcomes.

T G Ganiats1, R T Carson, R M Hamm, S B Cantor, W Sumner, S J Spann, M D Hagen, C Miller.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Time preference (how preference for an outcome changes depending on when the outcome occurs) affects clinical decisions, but little is known about determinants of time preferences in clinical settings.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether information about mean population time preferences for specific health states can be easily assessed, whether mean time preferences are constant across different diseases, and whether under certain circumstances substantial fractions of the patient population make choices that are consistent with a negative time preference.
DESIGN: Self-administered survey.
SETTING: Family physician waiting rooms in four states. PATIENTS: A convenience sample of 169 adults. INTERVENTION: Subjects were presented five clinical vignettes. For each vignette the subject chose between interventions maximizing a present and a future health outcome. The options for individual vignettes varied among the patients so that a distribution of responses was obtained across the population of patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Logistic regression was used to estimate the mean preference for each vignette, which was translated into an implicit discount rate for this group of patients.
RESULTS: There were marked differences in time preferences for future health outcomes based on the five vignettes, ranging from a negative to a high positive (116%) discount rate.
CONCLUSIONS: The study provides empirical evidence that time preferences for future health outcomes may vary substantially among disease conditions. This is likely because the vignettes evoked different rationales for time preferences. Time preference is a critical element in patient decision making and cost-effectiveness research, and more work is necessary to improve our understanding of patient preferences for future health outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10929848     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0002000302

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  8 in total

Review 1.  Theoretical arguments for the discounting of health consequences: where do we go from here?

Authors:  Angelina Lazaro
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  The welfare costs of HIV/AIDS in eastern Europe: an empirical assessment using the economic value-of-life approach.

Authors:  Julia Fimpel; Michael Stolpe
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2009-08-05

3.  Health-state valuations for pertussis: methods for valuing short-term health states.

Authors:  Grace M Lee; Joshua A Salomon; Charles W LeBaron; Tracy A Lieu
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2005-03-21       Impact factor: 3.186

Review 4.  Does temporal discounting explain unhealthy behavior? A systematic review and reinforcement learning perspective.

Authors:  Giles W Story; Ivo Vlaev; Ben Seymour; Ara Darzi; Raymond J Dolan
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 3.558

5.  Observed and Normative Discount Functions in Addiction and other Diseases.

Authors:  Salvador Cruz Rambaud; María J Muñoz Torrecillas; Taiki Takahashi
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2017-06-29       Impact factor: 5.988

6.  Using discounting biases, risk characteristics, and perceived control improves preventive programs.

Authors:  Monica Ortendahl
Journal:  Int J Biomed Sci       Date:  2007-06

7.  Effects of systematic asymmetric discounting on physician-patient interactions: a theoretical framework to explain poor compliance with lifestyle counseling.

Authors:  Steven R Feldman; G John Chen; Judy Y Hu; Alan B Fleischer
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2002-11-25       Impact factor: 2.796

8.  Private and social time preference for health outcomes: A general population survey in Iran.

Authors:  Alireza Mahboub-Ahari; Abolghasem Pourreza; Ali Akbari Sari; Trevor A Sheldon; Maryam Moeeni
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.