IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v88y2020i1d10.1007_s11238-019-09707-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Elicitation and modelling of imprecise utility of health states

Author

Listed:
  • Michał Jakubczyk

    () (SGH Warsaw School of Economics)

  • Dominik Golicki

    (Medical University of Warsaw)

Abstract

Utilities of health states are often estimated to support public decisions in health care. People’s preferences may be imprecise, for lack of actual trade-off experience. We show how to elicit the utilities accounting for imprecision (using fuzzy sets), discover the main drivers of imprecision, and compare several approaches to modelling health state utility data in the fuzzy setting. We extended the time trade-off (TTO) questionnaire, to elicit utilities of states defined in the EQ-5D-3L descriptive system (health described by five dimensions) in184 respondents. Our study demonstrates that respondents are capable of assessing their own imprecision and rigorous mathematical modelling is possible. The imprecision is larger than as inferred from the standard TTO method and is larger than estimation error, even in our smallish sample. Non-trading in TTO often results from imprecision, rather than lexicographic preferences for longevity over quality. People are especially imprecise in assessing the impact of usual activities (one of the dimensions) on utility; also, the internal inconsistency of a health state increases the imprecision. Fuzzy least squares method seems best suited to assign disutilities to individual dimensions, while separately modelling the location of utility and amount of imprecision seems best to produce value sets. If crisp parameters are estimated, accounting for imprecision changes the results little.

Suggested Citation

  • Michał Jakubczyk & Dominik Golicki, 2020. "Elicitation and modelling of imprecise utility of health states," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(1), pages 51-71, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:88:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11238-019-09707-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-019-09707-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11238-019-09707-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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. Isoni, Andrea & Brooks, Peter & Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 2016. "Do markets reveal preferences or shape them?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 1-16.
    2. Butler, David & Loomes, Graham, 2011. "Imprecision as an account of violations of independence and betweenness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 511-522.
    3. Tunçel, Tuba & Hammitt, James K., 2014. "A new meta-analysis on the WTP/WTA disparity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 175-187.
    4. Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Brendan J. Mulhern & Krystallia Pantiri & Ben van Hout, 2019. "A new method for valuing health: directly eliciting personal utility functions," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 257-270, March.
    5. Carthy, Trevor & Chilton, Susan & Covey, Judith & Hopkins, Lorraine & Jones-Lee, Michael & Loomes, Graham & Pidgeon, Nick & Spencer, Anne, 1998. "On the Contingent Valuation of Safety and the Safety of Contingent Valuation: Part 2--The CV/SG "Chained" Approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 187-213, December.
    6. Nancy J. Devlin & Aki Tsuchiya & Ken Buckingham & Carl Tilling, 2011. "A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: feasibility study of the ‘lead time’ approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 348-361, March.
    7. Richard Norman & Brendan Mulhern & Rosalie Viney, 2016. "The Impact of Different DCE-Based Approaches When Anchoring Utility Scores," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(8), pages 805-814, August.
    8. Stefan Stieger & Ulf‐Dietrich Reips & Martin Voracek, 2007. "Forced‐response in online surveys: Bias from reactance and an increase in sex‐specific dropout," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(11), pages 1653-1660, September.
    9. David Butler & Andrea Isoni & Graham Loomes & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2014. "On the Measurement of Strength of Preference in Units of Money," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 90, pages 1-15, June.
    10. Michał Jakubczyk & Bogumił Kamiński, 2017. "Fuzzy approach to decision analysis with multiple criteria and uncertainty in health technology assessment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 251(1), pages 301-324, April.
    11. Robin Cubitt & Daniel Navarro-Martinez & Chris Starmer, 2015. "On preference imprecision," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 1-34, February.
    12. Grether, David M & Plott, Charles R, 1979. "Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 623-638, September.
    13. Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Yan Feng & Brendan Mulhern & Ben van Hout, 2018. "Valuing health‐related quality of life: An EQ‐5D‐5L value set for England," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 7-22, January.
    14. Beattie, Jane & Covey, Judith & Dolan, Paul & Hopkins, Lorraine & Jones-Lee, Michael & Loomes, Graham & Pidgeon, Nick & Robinson, Angela & Spencer, Anne, 1998. "On the Contingent Valuation of Safety and the Safety of Contingent Valuation: Part 1--Caveat Investigator," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 5-25, October.
    15. L. M. Lamers & J. McDonnell & P. F. M. Stalmeier & P. F. M. Krabbe & J. J. V. Busschbach, 2006. "The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ‐5D valuation studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(10), pages 1121-1132, October.
    16. David J. Butler & Graham C. Loomes, 2007. "Imprecision as an Account of the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 277-297, March.
    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. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Johannes Buckenmaier & Michele Garagnani, 2020. "Stochastic choice and preference reversals," ECON - Working Papers 370, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    2. Sean Horan & Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2018. "Precision May Harm: The Comparative Statics of Imprecise Judgement," Working Paper Series 1518, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    3. Bayrak, Oben, 2016. "Another Solution for Allais Paradox: Preference Imprecision, Dispersion and Pessimism," MPRA Paper 71780, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. S. Olofsson & U.-G. Gerdtham & L. Hultkrantz & U. Persson, 2019. "Value of a QALY and VSI estimated with the chained approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(7), pages 1063-1077, September.
    5. Qiu, Jianying, 2015. "Completing incomplete preferences," MPRA Paper 91692, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 18 Jul 2016.
    6. Qiu, Jianying, 2015. "Completing incomplete preferences," MPRA Paper 72933, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 18 Jul 2016.
    7. Brebner, Sarah & Sonnemans, Joep, 2018. "Does the elicitation method impact the WTA/WTP disparity?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 40-45.
    8. Drouvelis, Michalis & Sonnemans, Joep, 2017. "The endowment effect in games," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 240-262.
    9. David J Butler, 2018. "Phishing holidays," Tourism Economics, , vol. 24(6), pages 690-700, September.
    10. Yudistira Permana, 2020. "Why do people prefer randomisation? An experimental investigation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(1), pages 73-96, February.
    11. James K. Hammitt, 2020. "Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 129-154, October.
    12. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine & Zacharias Maniadis, 2012. "On the Robustness of Anchoring Effects in WTP and WTA Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 131-145, May.
    13. Kim, Younjun, 2015. "Essays on firm location decisions, regional development and choices under risk," ISU General Staff Papers 201501010800005579, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    14. Oben K Bayrak & Bengt Kriström, 2016. "Is there a valuation gap? The case of interval valuations," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 36(1), pages 218-236.
    15. Gibson, John & Barns, Sandra & Cameron, Michael & Lim, Steven & Scrimgeour, Frank & Tressler, John, 2007. "The Value of Statistical Life and the Economics of Landmine Clearance in Developing Countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 512-531, March.
    16. Berg, Joyce E. & Dickhaut, John W. & Rietz, Thomas A., 2010. "Preference reversals: The impact of truth-revealing monetary incentives," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 443-468, March.
    17. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Ðura-Georg Granić & Johannes Kern & Alexander K. Wagner, 2016. "Preference reversals: Time and again," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 65-97, February.
    18. Olofsson, Sara & Gerdtham , Ulf-G & Hultkrantz , Lars & Persson , Ulf, 2016. "Chained Approach vs Contingent Valuation for Estimating the Value of Risk Reduction," Working Papers 2016:34, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    19. Kim Kaivanto & Eike Kroll, 2014. "Alternation bias and reduction in St. Petersburg gambles," Working Papers 65600286, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    20. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2013. "In search of a preferred preference elicitation method: A test of the internal consistency of choice and matching tasks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 126-140.

    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:kap:theord:v:88:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11238-019-09707-6. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.