IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v19y2018i1d10.1007_s10198-017-0916-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient preferences: a Trojan horse for evidence-based medicine?

Author

Listed:
  • Afschin Gandjour

    (Frankfurt School of Finance and Management)

Abstract

The evidence-based medicine (EBM) movement has long acknowledged the relevance of patient preferences and values. According to EBM, clinicians first clarify the medical evidence about the benefits and burdens of the treatment in question and then, as a second step, elicit values and preferences from patients. Importantly, however, values are placed on patient-relevant outcomes. Surrogate endpoints are only used if their validity is proven. This article shows that some recent patient-preference studies attribute value to surrogate endpoints even when there is no improvement in patient-relevant outcomes. The article points out their foundation in neoclassical economics and discusses their clash with principles of EBM and medical ethics.

Suggested Citation

  • Afschin Gandjour, 2018. "Patient preferences: a Trojan horse for evidence-based medicine?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(1), pages 167-172, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:19:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s10198-017-0916-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-017-0916-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-017-0916-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-017-0916-4?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. Afschin Gandjour, 2010. "Theoretical Foundation of Patient v. Population Preferences in Calculating QALYs," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(4), pages 57-63, July.
    2. Axel Mühlbacher & Susanne Bethge, 2015. "Patients’ preferences: a discrete-choice experiment for treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(6), pages 657-670, July.
    3. 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.
    4. Schlefer, Jonathan, 2012. "The Assumptions Economists Make," Economics Books, Harvard University Press, number 9780674052260, Spring.
    5. George A. Akerlof & Robert J. Shiller, 2015. "Phishing for Phools: The Economics of Manipulation and Deception," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 10534.
    6. Utens, Cecile M.A. & Dirksen, Carmen D. & van der Weijden, Trudy & Joore, Manuela A., 2016. "How to integrate research evidence on patient preferences in pharmaceutical coverage decisions and clinical practice guidelines: A qualitative study among Dutch stakeholders," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 120-128.
    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. Joseph E. Stiglitz, 2017. "The overselling of globalization," Business Economics, Palgrave Macmillan;National Association for Business Economics, vol. 52(3), pages 129-137, July.
    2. Joseph Stiglitz, 2018. "From manufacturing-led export growth to a twenty-first-century inclusive growth strategy: Explaining the demise of a successful growth model and what to do about it," WIDER Working Paper Series 176, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    3. John Y. Campbell, 2016. "Restoring Rational Choice: The Challenge of Consumer Financial Regulation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 1-30, May.
    4. Joshua Schwartzstein & Adi Sunderam, 2021. "Using Models to Persuade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(1), pages 276-323, January.
    5. Bengt Liljas, 2011. "Welfare, QALYs, and costs – a comment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 68-72, January.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Gordon Hazen, 2004. "Multiattribute Structure for QALYs," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(4), pages 205-216, December.
    9. 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.
    10. Jacquemet, N. & Luchini, S. & Malézieux, A. & Shogren, J.F., 2020. "Who’ll stop lying under oath? Empirical evidence from tax evasion games," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    11. 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.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:40-47 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. V. I. Danilov & A. Lambert-Mogiliansky & V. Vergopoulos, 2018. "Dynamic consistency of expected utility under non-classical (quantum) uncertainty," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 645-670, June.
    16. Johannesson, Magnus, 1995. "Qalys: A comment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 327-328, February.
    17. Kaushik Basu & Avinash Dixit, 2017. "Too Small to Regulate," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 15(1), pages 1-14, March.
    18. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    19. Falkinger, Josef, 2016. "The order of knowledge and robust action: How to deal with economic uncertainty?," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 10, pages 1-30.
    20. Francisco Javier Carrillo, 2016. "Knowledge markets: a typology and an overview," International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(3), pages 264-289.
    21. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Evidence-based medicine; Medical ethics; Neoclassical economics; Patient preferences;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • B1 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Economic Thought through 1925
    • H51 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Government Expenditures and Health
    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    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:spr:eujhec:v:19:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s10198-017-0916-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.