IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v294y2022ics0277953622000338.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do patients and other stakeholders value health service quality equally? A prospect theory based choice experiment in cataract care

Author

Listed:
  • Stolk-Vos, Aline C.
  • Attema, Arthur E.
  • Manzulli, Michele
  • van de Klundert, Joris J.

Abstract

This study aims to compare the valuation of health service quality by patients and other stakeholders through a case study in cataract care.

Suggested Citation

  • Stolk-Vos, Aline C. & Attema, Arthur E. & Manzulli, Michele & van de Klundert, Joris J., 2022. "Do patients and other stakeholders value health service quality equally? A prospect theory based choice experiment in cataract care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:294:y:2022:i:c:s0277953622000338
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114730
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953622000338
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114730?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier, 2013. "Prospect theory in the health domain: A quantitative assessment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1057-1065.
    2. Arthur E. Attema & Werner B.F. Brouwer & Olivier l'Haridon, 2013. "A quantification of prospect theory in the health domain," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes 1 & University of Caen) 201321, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes 1, University of Caen and CNRS.
    3. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L’Haridon, 2008. "A tractable method to measure utility and loss aversion under prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 245-266, June.
    4. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    5. Peter Wakker & Daniel Deneffe, 1996. "Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern Utilities When Probabilities Are Distorted or Unknown," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(8), pages 1131-1150, August.
    6. Bostic, Raphael & Herrnstein, R. J. & Luce, R. Duncan, 1990. "The effect on the preference-reversal phenomenon of using choice indifferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 193-212, March.
    7. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier & Pinto, Jose Luis, 2016. "An elicitation of utility for quality of life under prospect theory," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 121-134.
    8. Winter, Laraine & Parker, Barbara, 2007. "Current health and preferences for life-prolonging treatments: An application of prospect theory to end-of-life decision making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(8), pages 1695-1707, October.
    9. Matteo M. Galizzi & Marisa Miraldo & Charitini Stavropoulou, 2016. "In Sickness but Not in Wealth," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(4), pages 503-517, May.
    10. Arthur E. Attema & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L’Haridon & Patrick Peretti-Watel & Valérie Seror, 2018. "Discounting health and money: New evidence using a more robust method," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 117-140, April.
    11. 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..
    12. Galizzi, Matteo M. & Miraldo, Marisa & Stavropoulou, Charitini, 2016. "In sickness but not in wealth: field evidence on patients’ risk preferences in the financial and health domain," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64764, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Rouyard, Thomas & Attema, Arthur & Baskerville, Richard & Leal, José & Gray, Alastair, 2018. "Risk attitudes of people with ‘manageable’ chronic disease: An analysis under prospect theory," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 144-153.
    14. Jorge Maurino & Javier Sotoca & Ángel P. Sempere & Luis Brieva & Carlos López de Silanes & Ana B. Caminero & María Terzaghi & Julia Gracia-Gil & Gustavo Saposnik, 2021. "High-Efficacy Disease-Modifying Therapies in People with Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: The Role of Risk Attitude in Treatment Decisions," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(2), pages 241-248, March.
    15. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    16. Mark Harrison & Dan Rigby & Caroline Vass & Terry Flynn & Jordan Louviere & Katherine Payne, 2014. "Risk as an Attribute in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review of the Literature," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(2), pages 151-170, June.
    17. Klasa, Katarzyna & Greer, Scott L. & van Ginneken, Ewout, 2018. "Strategic Purchasing in Practice: Comparing Ten European Countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(5), pages 457-472.
    18. Martin Roessler & Jochen Schmitt & Olaf Schoffer, 2019. "Ranking hospitals when performance and risk factors are correlated: A simulation-based comparison of risk adjustment approaches for binary outcomes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-15, December.
    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. Kpegli, Yao Thibaut & Corgnet, Brice & Zylbersztejn, Adam, 2023. "All at once! A comprehensive and tractable semi-parametric method to elicit prospect theory components," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    2. Stefan A. Lipman & Arthur E. Attema, 2019. "Rabin's paradox for health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(8), pages 1064-1071, August.
    3. Yao Thibaut Kpegli, 2023. "Smoothing Spline Method for Measuring Prospect Theory Components," Working Papers 2303, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    4. Arthur E. Attema & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L'Haridon, 2018. "Ambiguity preferences for health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(11), pages 1699-1716, November.
    5. Géraldine Bocquého & Julien Jacob & Marielle Brunette, 2023. "Prospect theory in multiple price list experiments: further insights on behaviour in the loss domain," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 94(4), pages 593-636, May.
    6. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier & Pinto, Jose Luis, 2016. "An elicitation of utility for quality of life under prospect theory," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 121-134.
    7. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier & Pinto, Jose Luis, 2015. "Estimating sign-dependent societal preferences for quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 229-243.
    8. Festjens, Anouk & Bruyneel, Sabrina & Diecidue, Enrico & Dewitte, Siegfried, 2015. "Time-based versus money-based decision making under risk: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 52-72.
    9. Arthur E. Attema & Marieke Krol & Job Exel & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2018. "New findings from the time trade-off for income approach to elicit willingness to pay for a quality adjusted life year," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(2), pages 277-291, March.
    10. Alejandro Arrieta & Ariadna García‐Prado & Paula González & José Luis Pinto‐Prades, 2017. "Risk attitudes in medical decisions for others: An experimental approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S3), pages 97-113, December.
    11. Kairies-Schwarz, Nadja & Kokot, Johanna & Vomhof, Markus & Weßling, Jens, 2017. "Health insurance choice and risk preferences under cumulative prospect theory – an experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 374-397.
    12. Rouyard, Thomas & Attema, Arthur & Baskerville, Richard & Leal, José & Gray, Alastair, 2018. "Risk attitudes of people with ‘manageable’ chronic disease: An analysis under prospect theory," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 144-153.
    13. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2009. "Probability weighting and the ‘level’ and ‘spacing’ of outcomes: An experimental study over losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 45-63, August.
    14. Lipman, Stefan A. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Attema, Arthur E., 2020. "Living up to expectations: Experimental tests of subjective life expectancy as reference point in time trade-off and standard gamble," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    15. Stefan A. Lipman & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Arthur E. Attema, 2019. "A QALY loss is a QALY loss is a QALY loss: a note on independence of loss aversion from health states," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 419-426, April.
    16. Emmanuel Kemel & Corina Paraschiv, 2018. "Deciding about human lives: an experimental measure of risk attitudes under prospect theory," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(1), pages 163-192, June.
    17. Heutel, Garth, 2019. "Prospect theory and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 236-254.
    18. Víctor González-Jiménez, 2021. "Incentive contracts when agents distort probabilities," Vienna Economics Papers vie2101, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    19. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier, 2013. "Prospect theory in the health domain: A quantitative assessment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1057-1065.
    20. Gijs van de Kuilen & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "The Midweight Method to Measure Attitudes Toward Risk and Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 582-598, March.

    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:eee:socmed:v:294:y:2022:i:c:s0277953622000338. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.