IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v45y2025i4p376-384.html

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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Jan J. V. Busschbach & Leida M. Lamers & Paul F. M. Krabbe, 2005. "The gap effect: discontinuities of preferences around dead," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(7), pages 679-685, July.
    2. Stefan A. Lipman & Arthur E. Attema & Matthijs M. Versteegh, 2022. "Correcting for discounting and loss aversion in composite time trade‐off," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(8), pages 1633-1648, August.
    3. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Ben Van Hout, 2015. "A Comparison of Methods for Converting DCE Values onto the Full Health-Dead QALY Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(3), pages 328-340, April.
    4. Bram Roudijk & A. Rogier T. Donders & Peep F.M. Stalmeier, 2018. "Setting Dead at Zero: Applying Scale Properties to the QALY Model," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 627-634, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shitong Xie & Tianxin Pan & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goni & Brendan Mulhern & Zhihao Yang & Richard Norman & Nancy Devlin & Feng Xie, 2025. "Eliciting and Anchoring Health State Preferences Using Discrete Choice Experiments Among Adults, Adolescents, and Children," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 43(11), pages 1353-1366, November.
    2. Alice Yu & Bram Roudijk & Peiwen Jiang & Richard Norman & Rosalie Viney & Deborah Street & Nancy Devlin & Mulhern Brendan, 2026. "Valuation of the EQ-5D-Y-5L Using DCE Methods That Account for Nonlinear Time Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 46(3), pages 343-354, April.

    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. Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    2. Nan Luo & Minghui Li & Elly Stolk & Nancy Devlin, 2013. "The effects of lead time and visual aids in TTO valuation: a study of the EQ-VT framework," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 15-24, July.
    3. Shitong Xie & Tianxin Pan & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goni & Brendan Mulhern & Zhihao Yang & Richard Norman & Nancy Devlin & Feng Xie, 2025. "Eliciting and Anchoring Health State Preferences Using Discrete Choice Experiments Among Adults, Adolescents, and Children," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 43(11), pages 1353-1366, November.
    4. Joseph Kwon & Louise Freijser & Elisabeth Huynh & Martin Howell & Gang Chen & Kamran Khan & Shahd Daher & Nia Roberts & Conrad Harrison & Sarah Smith & Nancy Devlin & Kirsten Howard & Emily Lancsar & , 2022. "Correction to: Systematic Review of Conceptual, Age, Measurement and Valuation Considerations for Generic Multidimensional Childhood Patient-Reported Outcome Measures," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 477-478, April.
    5. Osman, Ahmed M.Y. & Wu, Jing & He, Xiaoning & Chen, Gang, 2021. "Eliciting SF-6Dv2 health state utilities using an anchored best-worst scaling technique," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    6. Bansback, Nick & Hole, Arne Risa & Mulhern, Brendan & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2014. "Testing a discrete choice experiment including duration to value health states for large descriptive systems: Addressing design and sampling issues," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 38-48.
    7. Mina Bahrampour & Joshua Byrnes & Richard Norman & Paul A. Scuffham & Martin Downes, 2020. "Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 983-992, September.
    8. Haode Wang & Donna L. Rowen & John E. Brazier & Litian Jiang, 2023. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health State Valuation: A Systematic Review of Progress and New Trends," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 405-418, May.
    9. Titi Sahidah Fitriana & Bram Roudijk & Fredrick Dermawan Purba & Jan J. V. Busschbach & Elly Stolk, 2022. "Estimating an EQ-5D-Y-3L Value Set for Indonesia by Mapping the DCE onto TTO Values," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 157-167, December.
    10. Yiu, Hei Hang Edmund & Buckell, John & Petrou, Stavros & Stewart-Brown, Sarah & Madan, Jason, 2023. "Derivation of a UK preference-based value set for the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS) to allow estimation of Mental Well-being Adjusted Life Years (MWALYs)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 327(C).
    11. Benjamin M. Craig, 2009. "The duration effect: a link between TTO and VAS values," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 217-225, February.
    12. Zhongyu Lang & Liying Zhang & Stefan A. Lipman & Bradley Sugden & Kim Rand & Arthur E. Attema, 2025. "Correction: Is episodic future thinking effective in mitigating the influence of time preference in time trade-off?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(9), pages 1707-1707, December.
    13. Poder, Thomas G. & Ameri, Hosein, 2025. "Comparison of methods for anchoring latent values on the full health-dead utility scale," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 383(C).
    14. Fanni Rencz & Gábor Ruzsa & Alex Bató & Zhihao Yang & Aureliano Paolo Finch & Valentin Brodszky, 2022. "Value Set for the EQ-5D-Y-3L in Hungary," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 205-215, December.
    15. Koonal K. Shah & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Simone Kreimeier & Nancy J. Devlin, 2020. "An exploration of methods for obtaining 0 = dead anchors for latent scale EQ-5D-Y values," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 1091-1103, September.
    16. Simone Seyringer & Micha J. Pilz & Andrew Bottomley & Madeleine T. King & Richard Norman & Eva M. Gamper, 2025. "Cancer-specific utility: clinical validation of the EORTC QLU-C10D in patients with glioblastoma," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(5), pages 721-733, July.
    17. Nicolas A. Menzies & Joshua A. Salomon, 2011. "Non‐monotonicity in the episodic random utility model," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(12), pages 1523-1531, December.
    18. Chris Sampson & David Parkin & Nancy Devlin, 2024. "Is anchoring at ‘dead’ a theoretical requirement for health state valuation?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(9), pages 1929-1935, September.
    19. Mark Oppe & Kim Rand-Hendriksen & Koonal Shah & Juan M. Ramos‐Goñi & Nan Luo, 2016. "EuroQol Protocols for Time Trade-Off Valuation of Health Outcomes," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(10), pages 993-1004, October.
    20. Enrico Diecidue & Jeroen Van De Ven, 2008. "Aspiration Level, Probability Of Success And Failure, And Expected Utility," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49(2), pages 683-700, May.

    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: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.

    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.