IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v32y2012i2p301-310.html

Crediting Treatments for Good Outcomes That Would Have Happened Anyway

Author

Listed:
  • F. Vogt
  • D. Mason
  • T. M. Marteau

Abstract

Background . In some patient populations, many would experience good outcomes even if untreated (described as a small baseline risk). It appears that treatments for populations with small baseline risks are perceived as more effective than those for populations with large baseline risks: in essence, treatments are credited for good outcomes that would have happened anyway. Previous research failed to control for differences in treatment effects. Objective . To evaluate if the baseline risk of developing an acute condition influences the perceived effectiveness of preventive treatments besides the genuine treatment effect. Methods . In study 1 ( n = 1100) and study 2 ( n = 336), general population samples were shown information that systematically differed in size of treatment effect (absolute and relative risk reduction) and the size of the baseline risk of developing a condition. In study 3, medical students ( n = 110) were shown treatments that systematically differed in the size of the baseline risk of developing a condition and the type of condition to be prevented (i.e., migraines, heart disease, and pancreatic cancer). Measures included the perceived effectiveness of treatments, intentions to use these treatments, and numeracy. Results . The baseline risk of developing an acute condition influenced the perceived effectiveness of treatments (study 1: F 1,1043 = 66.17, P

Suggested Citation

  • F. Vogt & D. Mason & T. M. Marteau, 2012. "Crediting Treatments for Good Outcomes That Would Have Happened Anyway," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(2), pages 301-310, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:32:y:2012:i:2:p:301-310
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X11419858
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X11419858
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X11419858?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smith, V Kerry & Desvousges, William H, 1987. "An Empirical Analysis of the Economic Value of Risk Changes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 95(1), pages 89-114, February.
    2. Baron, Jonathan, 1997. "Confusion of Relative and Absolute Risk in Valuation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 301-309, May-June.
    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. Alberini, Anna & Ščasný, Milan, 2018. "The benefits of avoiding cancer (or dying from cancer): Evidence from a four- country study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 249-262.
    2. Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen & Jørgen Nexøe & Jesper Bo Nielsen, 2003. "How Do Individuals Apply Risk Information When Choosing Among Health Care Interventions?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 697-704, August.
    3. Marielle Brunette, 2012. "Do risk communication methods perform to generate rationality?," Working Papers - Cahiers du LEF 2012-01, Laboratoire d'Economie Forestiere, AgroParisTech-INRA.
    4. Moore, Don A. & Cain, Daylian M., 2007. "Overconfidence and underconfidence: When and why people underestimate (and overestimate) the competition," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 103(2), pages 197-213, July.
    5. Vredin Johansson, Maria & Heldt, Tobias & Johansson, Per, 2006. "The effects of attitudes and personality traits on mode choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 507-525, July.
    6. Kenshi Itaoka & Alan Krupnick & Makoto Akai & Anna Alberini & Maureen Cropper & Nathalie Simon, 2007. "Age, health, and the willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions: a contingent valuation survey of Shizuoka, Japan, residents," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 8(3), pages 211-237, September.
    7. Lucius Caviola & Nadira Faulmüller & Jim. A. C. Everett & Julian Savulescu & Guy Kahane, 2014. "The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(4), pages 303-315, July.
    8. Fredrik Carlsson & Dinky Daruvala & Henrik Jaldell, 2010. "Value of Statistical Life and Cause of Accident: A Choice Experiment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(6), pages 975-986, June.
    9. Cattaneo, Maria A. & Gschwendt, Christian & Wolter, Stefan C., 2025. "How scary is the risk of automation? Evidence from a large-scale survey experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    10. Friedrich Breyer & Stefan Felder, 2002. "The Dead-Anyway Effect Revis(it)ed," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 302, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    11. Johanna Wiss & Lars-Ake Levin & David Andersson & Gustav Tinghög, 2017. "Prioritizing Rare Diseases: Psychological Effects Influencing Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(5), pages 567-576, July.
    12. George Houtven & Melonie Sullivan & Chris Dockins, 2008. "Cancer premiums and latency effects: A risk tradeoff approach for valuing reductions in fatal cancer risks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 179-199, April.
    13. Daniel A. Haqen & James W. Vincent & Patrick G. Welle, 1992. "Benefits Of Preserving Old‐Growth Forests And The Spotted Owl," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 10(2), pages 13-26, April.
    14. Poe, Gregory L. & Bishop, Richard C., 1992. "Measuring the Benefits of Groundwater Protection from Agricultural Contamination: Results from a Two-Stage Contingent Valuation Study," Staff Papers 200549, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    15. Krupnick, Alan & Alberini, Anna & Cropper, Maureen & Simon, Nathalie & O'Brien, Bernie & Goeree, Ron & Heintzelman, Martin, 2002. "Age, Health and the Willingness to Pay for Mortality Risk Reductions: A Contingent Valuation Survey of Ontario Residents," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 161-186, March.
    16. Krupnick, Alan & Cropper, Maureen & Alberini, Anna & Simon, Nathalie & Itaoka, Kenshi & Akai, Makoto, 1999. "Mortality Risk Valuation for Environmental Policy," RFF Working Paper Series dp-99-47, Resources for the Future.
    17. Timothy L. McDaniels & Mark S. Kamlet & Gregory W. Fischer, 1992. "Risk Perception and the Value of Safety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 495-503, December.
    18. Gabriel Picone & Frank Sloan & Donald Taylor, 2004. "Effects of Risk and Time Preference and Expected Longevity on Demand for Medical Tests," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 39-53, January.
    19. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2007:i:14:p:1-10 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Vredin Johansson, Maria & Heldt, Tobias & Johansson, Per, 2005. "Latent Variables in a Travel Mode Choice Model: Attitudinal and Behavioural Indicator Variables," Working Paper Series 2005:5, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
    21. Gregory Poe & Richard Bishop, 1999. "Valuing the Incremental Benefits of Groundwater Protection when Exposure Levels are Known," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(3), pages 341-367, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sae:medema:v:32:y:2012:i:2:p:301-310. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.