IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v45y2025i4p376-384.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Immediate Death: Not So Bad If You Discount the Future but Still Worse than It Should Be

Author

Listed:
  • Eleanor M. Pullenayegum

    (Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
    Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada)

  • Marcel F. Jonker

    (Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus Centre for Health Economics and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Henry Bailey

    (Department of Economics & HEU Centre for Health Economics, the University of the West Indies, St Augustine, Trinidad, West Indies)

  • Bram Roudijk

    (EuroQol Research Foundation, Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Objectives Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) as a valuation method require preferences to be anchored on the quality-adjusted life-year scale, usually through tasks involving choices between immediate death and various impaired health states or between health states with varying durations of life. We sought to determine which anchoring approach aligns best with the composite time tradeoff (cTTO) method, with a view to informing a valuation protocol that uses DCEs in place of the cTTO. Methods A total of 970 respondents from Trinidad and Tobago completed a DCE with duration survey. Tasks involved choosing between 2 lives with identical durations, followed by a third option, representing either full health for a number of years or immediate death. Data were analyzed using mixed logit models, both with and without exponential discounting for time preferences. Results Assuming linear time preferences, the estimated utility of immediate death was −2.1 (95% credible interval [CrI] −3.2 to −1.2) versus −0.28 (95% CrI −0.47, −0.10) when allowing for nonlinear time preferences. Under linear time preferences, the predicted health-state values anchored on duration had range (−1.03, 1) versus (0.34, 1) when anchored on immediate death. The ranges under nonlinear time preferences were (−0.54, 1) versus (−0.22, 1). The estimated discount parameter was 23% (95% CrI 22% to 25%). Conclusions The nonzero discount parameter indicates that time preferences were nonlinear. Nonlinear time preferences anchored on duration provided the closest match to the benchmark EQ-VT cTTO values in Trinidad and Tobago, whose range was (−0.6, 1). Thus, DCE with duration can provide similar values to cTTO provided that nonlinear time preferences are accounted for and anchoring is based on duration. Highlights Time preferences for health states in Trinidad and Tobago were nonlinear. In discrete choice tasks, we show that immediate death has a utility less than zero. DCE utilities under nonlinear time preferences with anchoring on duration agreed well with cTTO utilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Eleanor M. Pullenayegum & Marcel F. Jonker & Henry Bailey & Bram Roudijk, 2025. "Immediate Death: Not So Bad If You Discount the Future but Still Worse than It Should Be," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(4), pages 376-384, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:4:p:376-384
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X251325828
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X251325828
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X251325828?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
    ---><---

    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:45:y:2025:i:4:p:376-384. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.