IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v60y2005i6p1385-1396.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is it worth the risk? A systematic review of instruments that measure risk propensity for use in the health setting

Author

Listed:
  • Harrison, James D.
  • Young, Jane M.
  • Butow, Phyllis
  • Salkeld, Glenn
  • Solomon, Michael J.

Abstract

In this era of shared doctor-patient decision-making, eliciting and incorporating patients' treatment choices is essential to ensure all patients receive the treatment that is right for them. Clinicians and researchers should fully understand the many factors that influence and guide patients in their preferences for treatment. One of these influences is an individual's general risk propensity or willingness to take risks, yet there is little in the literature about methods for measuring risk propensity. A systematic review was undertaken to identify instruments that measure risk propensity and to appraise their validity and relevance for a clinical setting. Of 3546 articles, 139 were potentially relevant. From these, 14 instruments were identified. Eight measured risk propensity, whereas six measured personality traits associated with risk propensity. Most instruments demonstrated good internal reliability but their appropriateness for patients, particularly older adults, remains unclear. While no instrument was specific to or tested in a clinical setting, instruments that directly measured risk propensity were considered to be the most useful for clinical populations. The further adaptation and validation of these instruments among older adults are important avenues for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Harrison, James D. & Young, Jane M. & Butow, Phyllis & Salkeld, Glenn & Solomon, Michael J., 2005. "Is it worth the risk? A systematic review of instruments that measure risk propensity for use in the health setting," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(6), pages 1385-1396, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:60:y:2005:i:6:p:1385-1396
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(04)00350-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Unknown, 1993. "Newsletter Fall 1993," Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, Working Paper Series qt7jz296w8, Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, University of California.
    2. 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..
    3. Unknown, 1993. "Newsletter Spring 1993," Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, Working Paper Series qt6zc5m57p, Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, University of California.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hannah A D Keage & Tobias Loetscher, 2018. "Estimating everyday risk: Subjective judgments are related to objective risk, mapping of numerical magnitudes and previous experience," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, December.
    2. Jean Spinks & Son Nghiem & Joshua Byrnes, 2021. "Risky business, healthy lives: how risk perception, risk preferences and information influence consumer’s risky health choices," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 811-831, July.
    3. Galizzi, Matteo M. & Miraldo, Marisa & Stavropoulou, Charitini & van der Pol, Marjon, 2016. "Doctor–patient differences in risk and time preferences: A field experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 171-182.
    4. Gino, Francesca & Margolis, Joshua D., 2011. "Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk preferences influence (Un)ethical behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 145-156, July.
    5. Elza Daoud & Charlotte Caimino & Michael A. Akeroyd & Arnaud J. Noreña & David M. Baguley, 2022. "The Utility of Economic Measures to Quantify the Burden of Tinnitus in Affected Individuals: A Scoping Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 21-32, January.
    6. Johanna I. Lutter & Boglárka Szentes & Margarethe E. Wacker & Joachim Winter & Sebastian Wichert & Annette Peters & Rolf Holle & Reiner Leidl, 2019. "Are health risk attitude and general risk attitude associated with healthcare utilization, costs and working ability? Results from the German KORA FF4 cohort study," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    7. Rosenkranz, Stephanie & Weitzel, Utz, 2012. "Network structure and strategic investments: An experimental analysis," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 898-920.
    8. Seeun Jung & Carole Treibich, 2015. "Is Self-Reported Risk Aversion Time Variant?," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 125(4), pages 547-570.
    9. Junha Kim & Yunchul Shin & Sujin Lee, 2017. "Built on Stone or Sand: The Stable Powerful Are Unethical, the Unstable Powerful Are Not," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 437-447, August.
    10. F. T. T. Phua, 2017. "Does the built-environment industry attract risk-taking individuals?," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(4), pages 207-217, April.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:33-47 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Jonathan J. Rolison & Yaniv Hanoch & Stacey Wood & Pi-Ju Liu, 2014. "Risk-Taking Differences Across the Adult Life Span: A Question of Age and Domain," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 69(6), pages 870-880.
    13. Ann-Renée Blais & Elke U. Weber, 2006. "A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT)Scale for Adult Populations," CIRANO Working Papers 2006s-24, CIRANO.
    14. Seeun Jung & Carole Treibich, 2014. "Is Self-Reported Risk Aversion Time Varying?," Working Papers halshs-00965549, HAL.
    15. Hajibaba, Homa & Gretzel, Ulrike & Leisch, Friedrich & Dolnicar, Sara, 2015. "Crisis-resistant tourists," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 46-60.
    16. Ann-Renée Blais & Elke U. Weber, 2006. "Testing Invariance in Risk Taking: A Comparison Between Anglophone and Francophone Groups," CIRANO Working Papers 2006s-25, CIRANO.
    17. Ann-Renée Blais & Elke U. Weber, 2006. "A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 33-47, July.
    18. Deck, Cary & Lee, Jungmin & Reyes, Javier A. & Rosen, Christopher C., 2013. "A failed attempt to explain within subject variation in risk taking behavior using domain specific risk attitudes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-24.
    19. repec:use:tkiwps:2424 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. J.M.J. Delnoij & K.J.M. De Jaegher & S. Rosenkranz, 2014. "Understanding preferences for ascending auctions, Buy-It-Now auctions and fixed prices," Working Papers 14-02, Utrecht School of Economics.
    21. Matteo M. Galizzi & Marisa Miraldo & Charitini Stavropoulou, 2016. "In Sickness but Not in Wealth," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(4), pages 503-517, May.
    22. Miraldo, M & Galizzi, M & Stavropoulou, C, 2013. "In sickness but not in wealth: Field evidence on patients’ risk preferences in the financial and health domain," Working Papers 31053, Imperial College, London, Imperial College Business School.
    23. Song, Reo & Jang, Sungha & Wang, Yingdi & Hanssens, Dominique M. & Suh, Jaebeom, 2021. "Reinforcement learning and risk preference in equity linked notes markets," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 224-246.
    24. repec:imp:wpaper:12579 is not listed 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. Seow Eng Ong & Davin Wang & Calvin Chua, 2023. "Disruptive Innovation and Real Estate Agency: The Disruptee Strikes Back," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 287-317, August.
    2. Herrmann, Tabea & Hübler, Olaf & Menkhoff, Lukas & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Allais for the poor," Kiel Working Papers 2036, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    3. Christiane Goodfellow & Dirk Schiereck & Steffen Wippler, 2013. "Are behavioural finance equity funds a superior investment? A note on fund performance and market efficiency," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 14(2), pages 111-119, April.
    4. Berg, Joyce E. & Rietz, Thomas A., 2019. "Longshots, overconfidence and efficiency on the Iowa Electronic Market," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 271-287.
    5. Reckers, Philip M.J. & Sanders, Debra L. & Roark, Stephen J., 1994. "The Influence of Ethical Attitudes on Taxpayer Compliance," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 47(4), pages 825-836, December.
    6. Bier, Vicki & Gutfraind, Alexander, 2019. "Risk analysis beyond vulnerability and resilience – characterizing the defensibility of critical systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(2), pages 626-636.
    7. Sitinjak Elizabeth Lucky Maretha & Haryanti Kristiana & Kurniasari Widuri & Sasmito Yohanes Wisnu Djati, 2019. "Investor behavior based on personality and company life cycle," HOLISTICA – Journal of Business and Public Administration, Sciendo, vol. 10(2), pages 23-38, August.
    8. Theo Arentze & Tao Feng & Harry Timmermans & Jops Robroeks, 2012. "Context-dependent influence of road attributes and pricing policies on route choice behavior of truck drivers: results of a conjoint choice experiment," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 1173-1188, November.
    9. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    10. Frank D. Hodge & Roger D. Martin & Jamie H. Pratt, 2006. "Audit Qualifications of Income†Decreasing Accounting Choices," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 369-394, June.
    11. Philippe Fevrier & Sebastien Gay, 2005. "Informed Consent Versus Presumed Consent The Role of the Family in Organ Donations," HEW 0509007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Ran Sun Lyng & Jie Zhou, 2019. "Household Portfolio Choice Before and After a House Purchase," Economics Working Papers 2019-01, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    13. Homonoff, Tatiana & Spreen, Thomas Luke & St. Clair, Travis, 2020. "Balance sheet insolvency and contribution revenue in public charities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    14. Shuang Yao & Donghua Yu & Yan Song & Hao Yao & Yuzhen Hu & Benhai Guo, 2018. "Dry Bulk Carrier Investment Selection through a Dual Group Decision Fusing Mechanism in the Green Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, November.
    15. Senik, Claudia, 2009. "Direct evidence on income comparisons and their welfare effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 408-424, October.
    16. Rand Kwong Yew Low, 2018. "Vine copulas: modelling systemic risk and enhancing higher‐moment portfolio optimisation," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 58(S1), pages 423-463, November.
    17. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    18. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    19. Sergio Da Silva & Raul Matsushita & Vanessa Valcanover & Jessica Campara & Newton Da Costa, 2022. "Losses make choices nonpositional," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 2(11), pages 1-11, November.
    20. Jonathan Meng & Feng Fu, 2020. "Understanding Gambling Behavior and Risk Attitudes Using Cryptocurrency-based Casino Blockchain Data," Papers 2008.05653, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.

    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:60:y:2005:i:6:p:1385-1396. 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.