Literature DB >> 12112493

A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities.

Han Bleichrodt1.   

Abstract

This paper gives a new explanation for the systematic disparity between standard gamble (SG) utilities and time trade-off (TTO) utilities. The common explanation, which is based on expected utility, is that the disparity is caused by curvature of the utility function for duration. This explanation is, however, incomplete. People violate expected utility and these violations lead to biases in SG and TTO utilities. The paper analyzes the impact on SG and TTO utilities of three main reasons why people violate expected utility: probability weighting, loss aversion, and scale compatibility. In the SG, the combined effect of utility curvature, probability weighting, loss aversion, and scale compatibility is an upward bias. In the TTO these factors lead both to upward and to downward biases. This analysis can also explain the tentative empirical finding that the TTO better describes people's preferences for health than the SG. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12112493     DOI: 10.1002/hec.688

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


  62 in total

1.  Valuation of depression co-occurring with a somatic condition: feasibility of the time trade-off task.

Authors:  Katerina Papageorgiou; Karin M Vermeulen; Fenna R M Leijten; Erik Buskens; Adelita V Ranchor; Maya J Schroevers
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Comparison of health state utility values derived using time trade-off, rank and discrete choice data anchored on the full health-dead scale.

Authors:  John Brazier; Donna Rowen; Yaling Yang; Aki Tsuchiya
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2011-09-30

3.  Toward a more universal approach in health valuation.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig; Jan J V Busschbach
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 3.046

4.  Neck pain patients' preference scores for their current health.

Authors:  Gabrielle van der Velde; Sheilah Hogg-Johnson; Ahmed M Bayoumi; Pierre Côté; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; Eric L Hurwitz; Murray Krahn
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-03-27       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Using conjoint analysis and choice experiments to estimate QALY values: issues to consider.

Authors:  Terry N Flynn
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Revisiting United States valuation of EQ-5D states.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig; Jan J V Busschbach
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2011-07-21       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  Productivity costs in health-state valuations : does explicit instruction matter?

Authors:  Marieke Krol; Werner Brouwer; Pedram Sendi
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making.

Authors:  Christine M McDonough; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Thirty down, only ten to go?! Awareness and influence of a 10-year time frame in TTO.

Authors:  F E van Nooten; X Koolman; J J V Busschbach; W B F Brouwer
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2013-08-14       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  The impact of disease severity on EQ-5D and SF-6D utility discrepancies in chronic heart failure.

Authors:  Nick Kontodimopoulos; Michalis Argiriou; Nikolaos Theakos; Dimitris Niakas
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2010-05-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.