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

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

Listed author(s):
  • Harrison, James D.
  • Young, Jane M.
  • Butow, Phyllis
  • Salkeld, Glenn
  • Solomon, Michael J.
Registered author(s):

    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.

    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): 60 (2005)
    Issue (Month): 6 (March)
    Pages: 1385-1396

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:60:y:2005:i:6:p:1385-1396
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Postal:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Unknown, 1993. "Newsletter Fall 1993," Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, Working Paper Series qt7jz296w8, Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, University of California.
    2. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    3. Unknown, 1993. "Newsletter Spring 1993," Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, Working Paper Series qt6zc5m57p, Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, University of California.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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: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)

    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.