IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v60y2005i6p1385-1396.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is it worth the risk? A systematic review of instruments that measure risk propensity for use in the health setting

Author

Listed:
  • Harrison, James D.
  • Young, Jane M.
  • Butow, Phyllis
  • Salkeld, Glenn
  • Solomon, Michael J.

Abstract

In this era of shared doctor-patient decision-making, eliciting and incorporating patients' treatment choices is essential to ensure all patients receive the treatment that is right for them. Clinicians and researchers should fully understand the many factors that influence and guide patients in their preferences for treatment. One of these influences is an individual's general risk propensity or willingness to take risks, yet there is little in the literature about methods for measuring risk propensity. A systematic review was undertaken to identify instruments that measure risk propensity and to appraise their validity and relevance for a clinical setting. Of 3546 articles, 139 were potentially relevant. From these, 14 instruments were identified. Eight measured risk propensity, whereas six measured personality traits associated with risk propensity. Most instruments demonstrated good internal reliability but their appropriateness for patients, particularly older adults, remains unclear. While no instrument was specific to or tested in a clinical setting, instruments that directly measured risk propensity were considered to be the most useful for clinical populations. The further adaptation and validation of these instruments among older adults are important avenues for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Harrison, James D. & Young, Jane M. & Butow, Phyllis & Salkeld, Glenn & Solomon, Michael J., 2005. "Is it worth the risk? A systematic review of instruments that measure risk propensity for use in the health setting," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(6), pages 1385-1396, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:60:y:2005:i:6:p:1385-1396
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(04)00350-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    2. Unknown, 1993. "Newsletter Spring 1993," Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, Working Paper Series qt6zc5m57p, Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, University of California.
    3. Unknown, 1993. "Newsletter Fall 1993," Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, Working Paper Series qt7jz296w8, Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, University of California.
    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. Rosenkranz, Stephanie & Weitzel, Utz, 2012. "Network structure and strategic investments: An experimental analysis," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 898-920.
    2. Hajibaba, Homa & Gretzel, Ulrike & Leisch, Friedrich & Dolnicar, Sara, 2015. "Crisis-resistant tourists," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 46-60.
    3. Ann-Renée Blais & Elke U. Weber, 2006. "Testing Invariance in Risk Taking: A Comparison Between Anglophone and Francophone Groups," CIRANO Working Papers 2006s-25, CIRANO.
    4. Ann-Renée Blais & Elke U. Weber, 2006. "A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 33-47, July.
    5. Gino, Francesca & Margolis, Joshua D., 2011. "Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk preferences influence (Un)ethical behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 145-156, July.
    6. Seeun Jung & Carole Treibich, 2015. "Is Self-Reported Risk Aversion Time Variant?," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 125(4), pages 547-570.
    7. repec:kap:jbuset:v:144:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s10551-015-2840-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Seeun Jung & Carole Treibich, 2014. "Is Self-Reported Risk Aversion Time Varying?," Working Papers halshs-00965549, HAL.
    9. Deck, Cary & Lee, Jungmin & Reyes, Javier A. & Rosen, Christopher C., 2013. "A failed attempt to explain within subject variation in risk taking behavior using domain specific risk attitudes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-24.
    10. repec:use:tkiwps:2424 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. J.M.J. Delnoij & K.J.M. De Jaegher & S. Rosenkranz, 2014. "Understanding preferences for ascending auctions, Buy-It-Now auctions and fixed prices," Working Papers 14-02, Utrecht School of Economics.
    12. Ann-Renée Blais & Elke U. Weber, 2006. "A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT)Scale for Adult Populations," CIRANO Working Papers 2006s-24, CIRANO.
    13. repec:imp:wpaper:12579 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Galizzi, Matteo M. & Miraldo, Marisa & Stavropoulou, Charitini & van der Pol, Marjon, 2016. "Doctor–patient differences in risk and time preferences: A field experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 171-182.

    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:eee:socmed:v:60:y:2005:i:6:p:1385-1396. 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). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.