IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v1y2006i2p118-133_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The influence of the ratio bias phenomenon on the elicitation of health states utilities

Author

Listed:
  • Pinto-Prades, José-Luis
  • Martinez-Perez, Jorge-Eduardo
  • Abellán-Perpiñán, José-María

Abstract

This paper tests whether logically equivalent risk formats can lead to different health state utilities elicited by means of the traditional standard gamble (SG) method and a modified version of the method that we call “double lottery.” We compare utilities for health states elicited when probabilities are framed in terms of frequencies with respect to 100 people in the population (i.e., X out of 100 who follow a medical treatment will die) with SG utilities elicited for frequencies with respect to 1,000 people in the population (i.e., Y out of 1,000 who follow a medical treatment will die). We found that people accepted a lower risk of death when success and failure probabilities were framed as frequencies type “Y deaths out of 1,000” rather than as frequencies type “X deaths out of 100” and hence the utilities for health outcomes were higher when the denominator was 1000 than when it was 100. This framing effect, known as Ratio Bias, may have important consequences in resource allocation decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Pinto-Prades, José-Luis & Martinez-Perez, Jorge-Eduardo & Abellán-Perpiñán, José-María, 2006. "The influence of the ratio bias phenomenon on the elicitation of health states utilities," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(2), pages 118-133, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i:2:p:118-133_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500002333/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i:2:p:118-133_4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.