IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-19-00805.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A survey analyzing assumptions for rational decision making in health care

Author

Listed:
  • Afschin Gandjour

    (Frankfurt School of Finance & Management)

  • Dimitrios Kourouklis

    (MINES ParisTech)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate whether an introductory educational course on rational decision making is able to improve decisions about health and health care including decisions based on the quality-adjusted life year model. Specifically, this study analyzed the impact of the course on i) health preference reversals (PRs); ii) violations of the condition of mutual utility independence (MUI) between preferences for longevity and health status; and iii) violations of the independence axiom (IA) of expected utility theory. A total of 162 undergraduate students were randomly assigned to a pre- or post-educational group based on a pre-specified allocation sequence. In both groups students took a survey with choice and valuation exercises on health and longevity and made health decisions for themselves and for those for whom they are responsible. More than 70% of students without training demonstrated PRs. Yet, education did not significantly alter the number of PRs. The IA was violated in almost half of participants without training but significantly less so in the group receiving the educational intervention. Violations of MUI were found in 51% of participants without training with a non-significant change in the educational group. In this sample violations of conditions for rational choice in health care were common and only to a small degree amenable to education.

Suggested Citation

  • Afschin Gandjour & Dimitrios Kourouklis, 2020. "A survey analyzing assumptions for rational decision making in health care," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 40(1), pages 828-836.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-19-00805
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2020/Volume40/EB-20-V40-I1-P70.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David M. Grether & James C. Cox, 1996. "The preference reversal phenomenon: Response mode, markets and incentives (*)," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 7(3), pages 381-405.
    2. Adam Oliver, 2013. "Testing Procedural Invariance In The Context Of Health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(3), pages 272-288, March.
    3. Yaari, Menahem E, 1987. "The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 95-115, January.
    4. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Oliver, Adam, 2013. "Testing the rate of preference reversal in personal and social decision-making," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1250-1257.
    6. M. Sirgy & Dong-Jin Lee & Grace Yu, 2011. "Consumer Sovereignty in Healthcare: Fact or Fiction?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 101(3), pages 459-474, July.
    7. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    8. Bleichrodt, Han, 1995. "QALYs and HYEs: Under what conditions are they equivalent?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 17-37, May.
    9. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Moshe Levy & Haim Levy, 2013. "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 7, pages 129-144, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Rania HENTATI & Jean-Luc PRIGENT, 2010. "Structured Portfolio Analysis under SharpeOmega Ratio," EcoMod2010 259600073, EcoMod.
    3. Marc Willinger, 1990. "La rénovation des fondements de l'utilité et du risque," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 41(1), pages 5-48.
    4. Ulrich Schmidt & Christian Seidl, 2014. "Reconsidering the common ratio effect: the roles of compound independence, reduction, and coalescing," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 323-339, October.
    5. Delli Gatti,Domenico & Fagiolo,Giorgio & Gallegati,Mauro & Richiardi,Matteo & Russo,Alberto (ed.), 2018. "Agent-Based Models in Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781108400046.
    6. James Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Ulrich Schmidt, 2015. "Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 215-250, June.
    7. Levy, Haim & Levy, Moshe, 2002. "Experimental test of the prospect theory value function: A stochastic dominance approach," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1058-1081, November.
    8. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2023. "Expected return—expected loss approach to optimal portfolio investment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 94(1), pages 63-81, January.
    9. Steven J. Humphrey & Nadia-Yasmine Kruse, 2024. "Who accepts Savage’s axiom now?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 1-17, February.
    10. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L’Haridon & Horst Zank, 2010. "Separating curvature and elevation: A parametric probability weighting function," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 39-65, August.
    11. Xue Dong He & Sang Hu & Jan Obłój & Xun Yu Zhou, 2017. "Technical Note—Path-Dependent and Randomized Strategies in Barberis’ Casino Gambling Model," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 97-103, February.
    12. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    13. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2014. "Dual criteria decisions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 101-113.
      • Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet, 2009. "Dual Criteria Decisions," Working Papers 02-2009, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics.
    14. Raquel M. Gaspar & Paulo M. Silva, 2023. "Investors’ perspective on portfolio insurance," Portuguese Economic Journal, Springer;Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestao, vol. 22(1), pages 49-79, January.
    15. Karine Darjinoff & Francois Pannequin, 2000. "Demande d'assurance : Faut-il abandonner le critère de l'espérance d'utilité ?," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques bla00004, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    16. Vjollca Sadiraj, 2014. "Probabilistic risk attitudes and local risk aversion: a paradox," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 443-454, December.
    17. Leitner, Johannes, 2005. "Dilatation monotonous Choquet integrals," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 994-1006, December.
    18. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Zimmermann, Jacqueline M., 1998. "Buying and Selling Prices of Investments: Configural Weight Model of Interactions Predicts Violations of Joint Independence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 145-187, May.
    19. Latifa Ghalayini & Dana Deeb, 2021. "Utility Measurement in Integrative Negotiation," Information Management and Business Review, AMH International, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15.
    20. Michèle Cohen & Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva, 2008. "Dynamic Decision Making when Risk Perception Depends on Past Experience," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 173-192, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    consumer sovereignty; education; health care; survey;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments

    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:ebl:ecbull:eb-19-00805. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.