IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v11y1991i4p294-304.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Continuous-risk Utility Assessment in Medical Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Gordon B. Hazen
  • Wallace J. Hopp
  • James M. Pellissier

Abstract

The authors argue that for risky medical treatment decisions, conventional utility assessment techniques are inadequate due to their emphasis on unrealistic risk magnitudes and sure consequences, leading to assessment questions that are unfamiliar to most patients, have little educational value, and do not reliably extend to the application at hand. As an alternative, medical utility assessments should be performed in a continuous-risk domain with risk levels matching those of the actual decision problem. In support of this position, the authors describe an empirical study that compares the responses of subjects under a conventional assessment protocol with those of subjects under a continuous-risk utility assessment protocol. Prelim inary results show that conventional assessment protocols result in significantly lower esti mates of the degrees of risk aversion compared with a more realistic continuous-risk protocol. Key words: continuous-risk utility assessment; decision making. (Med Decis Making 1991 ;11:294-304)

Suggested Citation

  • Gordon B. Hazen & Wallace J. Hopp & James M. Pellissier, 1991. "Continuous-risk Utility Assessment in Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 11(4), pages 294-304, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:11:y:1991:i:4:p:294-304
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9101100407
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9101100407
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9101100407?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark McCord & Richard de Neufville, 1986. ""Lottery Equivalents": Reduction of the Certainty Effect Problem in Utility Assessment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(1), pages 56-60, January.
    2. Joseph S. Pliskin & Donald S. Shepard & Milton C. Weinstein, 1980. "Utility Functions for Life Years and Health Status," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 206-224, February.
    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. Gordon Hazen, 2000. "Preference Factoring for Stochastic Trees," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(3), pages 389-403, March.
    2. A.M. Stiggelbout & G.M. Kiebert & J. Kievit & J.W.H. Leer & G. Stoter & J.C.J.M. De Haes, 1994. "Utility Assessment in Cancer Patients," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(1), pages 82-90, February.

    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. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Maria Abellan-Perpiñan & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades & Ildefonso Mendez-Martinez, 2007. "Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement Under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 469-482, March.
    2. Anne Spencer, 2001. "The Implications of Linking Questions within the SG and TTO Methods," Working Papers 438, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    3. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto, 2000. "A Parameter-Free Elicitation of the Probability Weighting Function in Medical Decision Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1485-1496, November.
    4. Anne Spencer, 2001. "The Implications of Linking Questions within the SG and TTO Methods," Working Papers 438, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    5. Bengt Liljas, 2011. "Welfare, QALYs, and costs – a comment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 68-72, January.
    6. Colson, Gérard, 1993. "Prenons-nous assez de risque dans les théories du risque?," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 69(1), pages 111-141, mars.
    7. Ryan Edwards, 2013. "The cost of uncertain life span," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 26(4), pages 1485-1522, October.
    8. Lars Peter Østerdal, 2004. "Exponential Health Utility: A Characterization and Comments on a Paper by Happich and Mühlbacher," Discussion Papers 04-04, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    9. Gordon Hazen, 2004. "Multiattribute Structure for QALYs," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(4), pages 205-216, December.
    10. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Østerdal, Lars Peter, 2013. "A new axiomatic approach to the evaluation of population health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 515-523.
    11. Lévesque, Moren & Schade, Christian, 2002. "Intuitive optimizing for time allocation decisions in newly formed ventures," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 2002,24, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    12. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.
    13. Enrico Diecidue & Peter Wakker & Marcel Zeelenberg, 2007. "Eliciting decision weights by adapting de Finetti’s betting-odds method to prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 179-199, June.
    14. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    15. Anna Scherbina, 2021. "Assessing the Optimality of a COVID Lockdown in the United States," Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 177-201, July.
    16. Attema, Arthur E. & l’Haridon, Olivier & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2019. "Measuring multivariate risk preferences in the health domain," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 15-24.
    17. Johannesson, Magnus, 1995. "Qalys: A comment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 327-328, February.
    18. Diecidue, E. & Schmidt, U. & Wakker, P.P., 2000. "A Theory of the Gambling Effect," Discussion Paper 2000-75, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    19. Kvamme, Maria Knoph & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Olsen, Jan Abel & Kristiansen, Ivar Sønbø, 2010. "Increasing marginal utility of small increases in life-expectancy?: Results from a population survey," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 541-548, July.
    20. McNamara, Simon & Tsuchiya, Aki & Holmes, John, 2021. "Does the UK-public's aversion to inequalities in health differ by group-labelling and health-gain type? A choice-experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).

    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:sae:medema:v:11:y:1991:i:4:p:294-304. 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: SAGE Publications (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.