Michał Jakubczyk1, Dominik Golicki2, Maciej Niewada2. 1. Decision Analysis and Support Unit, SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Al. Niepodległości 162, 02-554, Warsaw, Poland. michal.jakubczyk@sgh.waw.pl. 2. Department of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, Medical University of Warsaw, Banacha 1B, 02-097, Warsaw, Poland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In most religions, the preservation of one's own, God-given, life is considered obligatory, while the time trade-off method (TTO) forces one to voluntarily forego life years. We sought to verify how this conflict impacts TTO-results among the religious. METHODS: We used the data from the only EQ-5D valuation in Poland (2008, three-level, 321 respondents, 23 states each)-a very religious, mostly Catholic country. We measured the religiosity with the belief in afterlife question on two levels: strong (definitely yes) and some (also rather yes), both about a third of the sample. RESULTS: The religious more often are non-traders, unwilling to give up any time in exchange for quality of life: odds ratio (OR) equal to 1.97 (strong religiosity), OR 1.55 (some religiosity); and less often consider a state worse than death: OR 0.67 (strong), OR 0.81 (some). These associations are statistically significant ([Formula: see text]) and hold when controlling for possible demographic confounders. Strong religiosity abates the utility loss: in the additive approach by 0.14, in the multiplicative approach by the factor of 2.1 (both [Formula: see text]), especially among the older. Removing the effect of religiosity from the value set reduces the utility by 0.05 on average. CONCLUSION: The results may stem from a true difference in preferences or be a TTO-artifact and would vanish for other elicitation methods. Juxtaposing our findings with comments from respondents in other studies suggests the latter. Therefore, this Weltanschauung effect should be removed in cost-utility analysis.
PURPOSE: In most religions, the preservation of one's own, God-given, life is considered obligatory, while the time trade-off method (TTO) forces one to voluntarily forego life years. We sought to verify how this conflict impacts TTO-results among the religious. METHODS: We used the data from the only EQ-5D valuation in Poland (2008, three-level, 321 respondents, 23 states each)-a very religious, mostly Catholic country. We measured the religiosity with the belief in afterlife question on two levels: strong (definitely yes) and some (also rather yes), both about a third of the sample. RESULTS: The religious more often are non-traders, unwilling to give up any time in exchange for quality of life: odds ratio (OR) equal to 1.97 (strong religiosity), OR 1.55 (some religiosity); and less often consider a state worse than death: OR 0.67 (strong), OR 0.81 (some). These associations are statistically significant ([Formula: see text]) and hold when controlling for possible demographic confounders. Strong religiosity abates the utility loss: in the additive approach by 0.14, in the multiplicative approach by the factor of 2.1 (both [Formula: see text]), especially among the older. Removing the effect of religiosity from the value set reduces the utility by 0.05 on average. CONCLUSION: The results may stem from a true difference in preferences or be a TTO-artifact and would vanish for other elicitation methods. Juxtaposing our findings with comments from respondents in other studies suggests the latter. Therefore, this Weltanschauung effect should be removed in cost-utility analysis.
Keywords:
Health-related quality of life; Life after death; Preference elicitation; Religion; Time trade-off; Utility
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
Authors: Dominik Golicki; Michał Jakubczyk; Maciej Niewada; Witold Wrona; Jan J V Busschbach Journal: Value Health Date: 2009-09-10 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Katherine Regan Sterba; Jessica L Burris; Sue P Heiney; Megan Baker Ruppel; Marvella E Ford; Jane Zapka Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Katherine M Niemeyer; John A Gonzales; Thuy Doan; Erica N Browne; Maya M Rao; Nisha R Acharya Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Karen Y Chung; Gebremedhin B Gebretekle; Andrew Howard; Eleanor Pullenayegum; Mekonen Eshete; Christopher R Forrest; Beate Sander Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-07-01
Authors: Luke Barry; Anna Hobbins; Daniel Kelleher; Koonal Shah; Nancy Devlin; Juan Manuel Ramos Goni; Ciaran O'Neill Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 3.186