IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v20y2000i1p62-71.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unstable Preferences:

Author

Listed:
  • Sylvia J.T. Jansen
  • Anne M. Stiggelbout
  • Peter P. Wakker
  • Marianne A. Nooij
  • Evert M. Noordijk
  • Job Kievit

Abstract

Objective. Many studies suggest that impaired health states are valued more positively when experienced than when hypothetical. This study investigated to what extent this discrepancy occurs and examined four possible explanations: non-corresponding description of the hypothetical health state, new understanding due to experience with the health state, valuation shift due to a new status quo, and instability of preference. Patients and methods. Fifty-five breast cancer patients evaluated their actually experienced health state, a radiotherapy scenario, and a chemotherapy control scenario before, during, and after postoperative radiotherapy. Utilities were elicited by means of a visual analog scale (VAS), a chained time tradeoff (TTO), and a chained standard gamble (SG). Results. The discrepancy was found for all methods and was statistically significant for the TTO (predicted utilities: 0.89, actual utilities: 0.92, p ≤ 0.05). During radiotherapy, significant differences (p ≤ 0.01) were found between the utilities for the radiotherapy scenario and the actual health state by means of the VAS and the SG, suggesting non-corresponding description as an explanation. The utilities of the radiotherapy scenario and the chemotherapy control scenario remained stable over time, and thus new understanding, valuation shift, and instability could be ruled out as explanations. Conclusion . Utilities obtained through hypothetical scenarios may not be valid predictors of the value judgments of actually experienced health states. The discrepancy in this study seems to have been due to differences between the situations in question (non-corresponding descriptions). Key words: stability; utility assessment; standard gamble; time tradeoff; breast cancer; chemotherapy; radiotherapy. (Med Decis Making 2000;20:62-71)

Suggested Citation

  • Sylvia J.T. Jansen & Anne M. Stiggelbout & Peter P. Wakker & Marianne A. Nooij & Evert M. Noordijk & Job Kievit, 2000. "Unstable Preferences:," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(1), pages 62-71, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:20:y:2000:i:1:p:62-71
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0002000108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X0002000108
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X0002000108?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. Johnston, Katharine & Brown, Jackie & Gerard, Karen & O'Hanlon, Moira & Morton, Alison, 1998. "Valuing temporary and chronic health states associated with breast screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 213-222, July.
    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. Karen Gerard & Katharine Johnston & Jackie Brown, 1999. "The role of a pre‐scored multi‐attribute health classification measure in validating condition‐specific health state descriptions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(8), pages 685-699, December.
    2. Peasgood, T & Ward, S & Brazier, J, 2010. "A review and meta-analysis of health state utility values in breast cancer," MPRA Paper 29950, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Jing Shen & Matthew Breckons & Luke Vale & Robert Pickard, 2019. "Using Time Trade-Off Methods to Elicit Short-Term Utilities Associated with Treatments for Bulbar Urethral Stricture," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 551-558, December.
    4. Kristina Secnik & Louis S. Matza & Suzi Cottrell & Eric Edgell & Dominic Tilden & Sally Mannix, 2005. "Health State Utilities for Childhood Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Based on Parent Preferences in the United Kingdom," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(1), pages 56-70, January.
    5. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.
    6. Anne Spencer, 2004. "The implications of linking questions within the SG and TTO methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(8), pages 807-818, August.
    7. Mirjam Locadia & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Frans J. Oort & Martin H. Prins & Mirjam A. G. Sprangers & Patrick M. M. Bossuyt, 2004. "A Comparison of 3 Valuation Methods for Temporary Health States in Patients Treated with Oral Anticoagulants," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(6), pages 625-633, November.
    8. Peep F. M. Stalmeier, 2002. "Discrepancies between Chained and Classic Utilities Induced by Anchoring with Occasional Adjustments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(1), pages 53-64, February.
    9. Peter P. Wakker & Sylvia J. T. Jansen & Anne M. Stiggelbout, 2004. "Anchor Levels as a New Tool for the Theory and Measurement of Multiattribute Utility," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(4), pages 217-234, December.
    10. Lisa Prosser & James Hammitt & Ron Keren, 2007. "Measuring Health Preferences for Use in Cost-Utility and Cost-Benefit Analyses of Interventions in Children," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(9), pages 713-726, September.
    11. Kristina Boye & Louis Matza & Kimberly Walter & Kate Brunt & Andrew Palsgrove & Aodan Tynan, 2011. "Utilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(3), pages 219-230, June.
    12. Anne Spencer, 2000. "Testing the Additive Independence Assumption in the QALY Model," Working Papers 427, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    13. Anne Spencer, 2000. "Testing the Additive Independence Assumption in the QALY Model," Working Papers 427, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.

    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:20:y:2000:i:1:p:62-71. 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.