IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

What price information? Modelling threshold probabilities of fetal loss

Listed author(s):
  • Cairns, John
  • Shackley, Phil
Registered author(s):

    This paper is an extension of previous work in which an alternative method of measuring the benefits of antenatal screening was proposed. The method is based on the elicitation of threshold probabilities of fetal loss at which women would be indifferent between having and not having an amniocentesis for the prenatal diagnosis of fetal abnormalities. The aim of this paper is to extend the previous work by modelling the preferences of a larger sample of women and investigating the consistency and validity of their responses. The threshold probabilities are elicited using standard gambles and modelled using Tobit estimation. The results indicate that it is possible to model these probabilities in this way and that it is possible to obtain a high degree of consistency in response to standard gamble questions. While establishing the validity of the responses is more difficult there is some evidence that the technique can provide valid responses.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

    Volume (Year): 49 (1999)
    Issue (Month): 6 (September)
    Pages: 823-830

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:49:y:1999:i:6:p:823-830
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Postal:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:49:y:1999:i:6:p:823-830. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.