Literature DB >> 19787847

Time preference bias in time trade-off.

Marjon van der Pol1, Larissa Roux.   

Abstract

This study examined whether time trade-off (TTO) values adjusted for time preferences are more consistent with individuals' preferences. This was carried out by testing the constant proportional trade-off (CPTO) assumption, and both individual specific and standard discount rates were used. The results show that the mean adjustment factor is around 0.03. This may influence relative cost-effectiveness in economic evaluations. The CPTO assumption holds with respect to both unadjusted TTO values and TTO values adjusted for individuals'time preference, and therefore no conclusions can be drawn as to whether the adjusted values are more consistent with individuals' preferences. However, the CPTO assumption is violated when standard discount rates are used. This clearly shows that the use of standard discount rates should be avoided. Further exploration of the time preference bias and other biases in TTO is identified as an important area of future research.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 19787847     DOI: 10.1007/s10198-004-0265-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Health Econ        ISSN: 1618-7598


  9 in total

1.  Eliciting preferences to the EQ-5D-5L health states: discrete choice experiment or multiprofile case of best-worst scaling?

Authors:  Feng Xie; Eleanor Pullenayegum; Kathryn Gaebel; Mark Oppe; Paul F M Krabbe
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2013-04-04

2.  On the (not so) constant proportional trade-off in TTO.

Authors:  Arthur E Attema; Werner B F Brouwer
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-02-12       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Constantly proving the opposite? A test of CPTO using a broad time horizon and correcting for discounting.

Authors:  Arthur E Attema; Werner B F Brouwer
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2011-04-21       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods.

Authors:  Arthur E Attema; Yvette Edelaar-Peeters; Matthijs M Versteegh; Elly A Stolk
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2013-07

5.  Eye tracking to explore attendance in health-state descriptions.

Authors:  Anna Selivanova; Paul F M Krabbe
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-05       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Head-to-Head Comparison of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L Health Values.

Authors:  Anna Selivanova; Erik Buskens; Paul F M Krabbe
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  QALYs without bias? Nonparametric correction of time trade-off and standard gamble weights based on prospect theory.

Authors:  Stefan A Lipman; Werner B F Brouwer; Arthur E Attema
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 3.046

8.  Correcting for discounting and loss aversion in composite time trade-off.

Authors:  Stefan A Lipman; Arthur E Attema; Matthijs M Versteegh
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2022-04-26       Impact factor: 2.395

9.  A comparison of individual and collective decision making for standard gamble and time trade-off.

Authors:  Arthur E Attema; Han Bleichrodt; Olivier l'Haridon; Stefan A Lipman
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2020-01-04
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.