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

The impact of considering adaptation in health state valuation

  • Damschroder, Laura J.
  • Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J.
  • Ubel, Peter A.
Registered author(s):

    Patients with chronic health conditions often rate their quality of life (QoL) significantly higher than non-patients. One explanation for this discrepancy is that non-patients focus on the negative aspects of the onset of a condition, especially the early difficulties people face when they first experience a debilitating condition, without considering that patients can adapt to it over time. To test this hypothesis, we had 359 people perform person tradeoff (PTO) elicitations in an online survey, varying whether the treatment programs under consideration saved the lives of patients (a) with pre-existing paraplegia; or (b) who would experience new onset of paraplegia. Half of each group completed an "adaptation exercise" which encouraged them to consider their own ability to emotionally adapt to negative events in general and specifically to having paraplegia. The adaptation manipulation increased the value participants placed on pre-existing paraplegia (p=0.03) and on new onset paraplegia (p=0.05), relative to saving healthy lives. Moreover, the adaptation exercise dramatically reduced the differences between evaluations of pre-existing and new onset paraplegia to values within 2% of each other. Our findings suggest that asking non-patients to do an adaptation exercise before giving QoL ratings may help close the gap in ratings between patients and citizen non-patients.

    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): 61 (2005)
    Issue (Month): 2 (July)
    Pages: 267-277

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:61:y:2005:i:2:p:267-277
    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:61:y:2005:i:2:p:267-277. 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: (Shamier, Wendy)

    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.