IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pntd00/0007364.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unbiased assessment of disease surveillance utilities: A prospect theory application

Author

Listed:
  • Arthur E Attema
  • Lisheng He
  • Alasdair J C Cook
  • Victor J Del Rio Vilas

Abstract

Objectives: We contribute a new methodological approach to the ongoing efforts towards evaluating public health surveillance. Specifically, we apply a descriptive framework, grounded in prospect theory (PT), for the evaluation of decisions on disease surveillance deployment. We focus on two attributes of any surveillance system: timeliness, and false positive rate (FPR). Methods: In a sample of 69 health professionals from a number of health related networks polled online, we elicited PT preferences, specifically respondents’ attitudes towards gains, losses and probabilities (i.e., if they overweight or underweight extreme probabilities) by means of a series of lotteries for either timeliness or FPR. Moreover, we estimated willingness to pay (WTP) for improvements in the two surveillance attributes. For contextualization, we apply our framework to rabies surveillance. Results: Our data reveal considerable probability weighting, both for gains and losses. In other words, respondents underestimate their chances of getting a good outcome in uncertain situations, and they overestimate their chances of bad outcomes. Moreover, there is convex utility for losses and loss aversion, that is, losses loom larger than gains of the same absolute magnitude to the respondents. We find no differences between the estimated parameters for timeliness and FPR. The median WTP is $7,250 per day gained in detection time and $30 per 1/10,000 reduction in FPR. Conclusion: Our results indicate that the biases described by PT are present among public health professionals, which highlights the need to incorporate a PT framework when eliciting their preferences for surveillance systems. Author summary: In this paper we contribute a new methodological approach to the ongoing efforts towards evaluating public health surveillance. Specifically, we apply a descriptive framework for the evaluation of decisions on disease surveillance deployment. We focus on two attributes of any surveillance system: timeliness and false positive rates. In a sample of 69 health professionals from a number of health related networks polled online, we elicited preferences, specifically respondents’ attitudes towards gains, losses and probabilities (i.e., if they overweight or underweight extreme probabilities) by means of a series of lotteries. For contextualization, we apply our framework to rabies surveillance. Our data reveal that respondents underestimate their chances of getting a good outcome in uncertain situations, and they overestimate their chances of bad outcomes. Moreover, losses loom larger than gains of the same absolute magnitude to the respondents. We find no differences between the estimated parameters for timeliness and false positive rates. Our results indicate that the biases described are present among public health professionals, and highlight the need to adjust for them when eliciting their preferences for surveillance systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Arthur E Attema & Lisheng He & Alasdair J C Cook & Victor J Del Rio Vilas, 2019. "Unbiased assessment of disease surveillance utilities: A prospect theory application," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-17, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0007364
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007364
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0007364
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0007364&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007364?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
    ---><---

    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:plo:pntd00:0007364. 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: plosntds (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/ .

    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.