IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v13y2004i1p37-48.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Responses to standard gambles: are preferences ‘well constructed’?

Author

Listed:
  • Rachel Baker
  • Angela Robinson

Abstract

Standard gamble (SG) is commonly used to elicit preferences in order to assess health related quality of life. There has been little qualitative research exploring how respondents answer such questions. An SG study was designed to elicit values for the health states associated with anti‐hypertensive medication, stroke and cardiovascular disease. This paper describes a qualitative study that was carried out alongside the SG exercise in order to document the thought processes respondents bring to bear in formulating their responses. Data were generated using ‘think aloud’ techniques and semi‐structured interviews. Values were generally well‐constructed: responses were thoroughly considered, and respondents made complex trade‐offs and arrived at a point of indifference. However, some respondents incorporated inappropriate information into their choices, redefining the hypothetical ‘Option B’ resulting in problems interpreting the probabilistic information. Consideration of non‐health factors was commonplace, in particular the impact of choices on others. We discuss these findings in terms of the use of qualitative methods in health economics and the wider discourse surrounding the theoretical underpinnings of health state valuation. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Rachel Baker & Angela Robinson, 2004. "Responses to standard gambles: are preferences ‘well constructed’?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 37-48, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:1:p:37-48
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.795
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.795
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.795?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. Han Bleichrodt & Magnus Johannesson, 1997. "The Validity of QALYs," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(1), pages 21-32, February.
    2. Shiell, Alan & Gold, Lisa, 2002. "Contingent valuation in health care and the persistence of embedding effects without the warm glow," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 251-262, April.
    3. Dolan, Paul & Sutton, Matthew, 1997. "Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1519-1530, May.
    4. Loomes, Graham & McKenzie, Lynda, 1989. "The use of QALYs in health care decision making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 299-308, January.
    5. Anne Spencer, 2001. "The Time Trade-Off Method: An Exploratory Study," Working Papers 437, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    6. Anne Spencer, 2001. "The Time Trade-Off Method: An Exploratory Study," Working Papers 437, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    7. Payne, John W & Bettman, James R & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 243-270, December.
    8. Gregory, Robin & Lichtenstein, Sarah & Slovic, Paul, 1993. "Valuing Environmental Resources: A Constructive Approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 177-197, October.
    9. Morrison, Gwendolyn C, 2000. "The Endowment Effect and Expected Utility," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 47(2), pages 183-197, May.
    10. Jones-Lee, Michael W & Loomes, Graham & Philips, P R, 1995. "Valuing the Prevention of Non-fatal Road Injuries: Contingent Valuation vs. Standard Gambles," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 47(4), pages 676-695, October.
    11. Broome, John, 1978. "Choice and Value in Economics," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 313-333, November.
    12. Robinson, Angela & Dolan, Paul & Williams, Alan, 1997. "Valuing health status using VAS and TTO: What lies behind the numbers?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1289-1297, October.
    13. Cam Donaldson & Stephen Birch & Amiram Gafni, 2002. "The distribution problem in economic evaluation: income and the valuation of costs and consequences of health care programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 55-70, January.
    14. Culyer, A J, 1989. "The Normative Economics of Health Care Finance and Provision," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 5(1), pages 34-58, Spring.
    15. Angela Robinson & Graham Loomes & Michael Jones-Lee, 2001. "Visual Analog Scales, Standard Gambles, and Relative Risk Aversion," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 17-27, February.
    16. Dolan, P. & Gudex, C. & Kind, P. & Williams, A., 1996. "Valuing health states: A comparison of methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 209-231, April.
    17. J. Leighton Read & Robert J. Quinn & Donald M. Berwick & Harvey V. Fineberg & Milton C. Weinstein, 1984. "Preferences for Health Outcomes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 4(3), pages 315-329, August.
    18. Paul Dolan & Colin Green, 1998. "Using the person trade‐off approach to examine differences between individual and social values," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(4), pages 307-312, June.
    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. David Parkin & Nancy Devlin, 2006. "Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost‐utility analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 653-664, July.
    2. Giulia Greco & Paula Lorgelly & Inthira Yamabhai, 2016. "Outcomes in Economic Evaluations of Public Health Interventions in Low‐ and Middle‐Income Countries: Health, Capabilities and Subjective Wellbeing," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 83-94, February.
    3. Neale Smith & Craig Mitton & Stuart Peacock, 2009. "Qualitative methodologies in health‐care priority setting research," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(10), pages 1163-1175, October.
    4. Goodwin, Elizabeth & Davey, Antoinette & Green, Colin & Hawton, Annie, 2021. "What drives differences in preferences for health states between patients and the public? A qualitative investigation of respondents’ thought processes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).
    5. McTaggart-Cowan, Helen & Tsuchiya, Aki & O'Cathain, Alicia & Brazier, John, 2011. "Understanding the effect of disease adaptation information on general population values for hypothetical health states," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(11), pages 1904-1912, June.
    6. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson & Vikki Entwistle, 2009. "Rationalising the ‘irrational’: a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 321-336, March.
    7. David J. Mott & Iain Leslie & Koonal Shah & Jennifer Rowell & Nicolas Scheuer, 2021. "Impact of Including Carer Information in Time Trade-Off Tasks: Results from a Pilot Study," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 665-675, December.
    8. Balmford, Ben & Bateman, Ian J. & Bolt, Katherine & Day, Brett & Ferrini, Silvia, 2019. "The value of statistical life for adults and children: Comparisons of the contingent valuation and chained approaches," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 68-84.
    9. Karimi, M. & Brazier, J. & Paisley, S., 2017. "How do individuals value health states? A qualitative investigation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 80-88.
    10. Daniel M. Hausman, 2010. "Valuing health: a new proposal," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 280-296, March.
    11. Milad Karimi & John Brazier, 2016. "Health, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Quality of Life: What is the Difference?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(7), pages 645-649, July.
    12. Sylvie M. C. van Osch & Anne M. Stiggelbout, 2008. "The construction of standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(1), pages 31-40, January.
    13. Groot, Wim & van den Brink, Henriette Maassen, 2007. "Optimism, pessimism and the compensating income variation of cardiovascular disease: A two-tiered quality of life stochastic frontier model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(7), pages 1479-1489, October.

    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. Trude Arnesen & Mari Trommald, 2005. "Are QALYs based on time trade‐off comparable? – A systematic review of TTO methodologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 39-53, January.
    2. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619, June.
    3. Joshua A. Salomon & Christopher J.L. Murray, 2004. "A multi‐method approach to measuring health‐state valuations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(3), pages 281-290, March.
    4. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Maria Abellan-Perpiñan & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades & Ildefonso Mendez-Martinez, 2007. "Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement Under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 469-482, March.
    5. Richard Cookson, 2005. "QALYs and the capability approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(8), pages 817-829, August.
    6. Eve Wittenberg & Lisa Prosser, 2011. "Ordering errors, objections and invariance in utility survey responses," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 225-241, July.
    7. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto & Peter P. Wakker, 2001. "Making Descriptive Use of Prospect Theory to Improve the Prescriptive Use of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(11), pages 1498-1514, November.
    8. Cam Donaldson & Stephen Birch & Amiram Gafni, 2002. "The distribution problem in economic evaluation: income and the valuation of costs and consequences of health care programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 55-70, January.
    9. Anne Spencer, 2000. "Testing the Additive Independence Assumption in the QALY Model," Working Papers 427, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    10. Alan Shiell & Lisa Gold, 2003. "If the price is right: vagueness and values clarification in contingent valuation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(11), pages 909-919, November.
    11. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson & Vikki Entwistle, 2009. "Rationalising the ‘irrational’: a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 321-336, March.
    12. Anne Spencer, 2001. "The Time Trade-Off Method: An Exploratory Study," Working Papers 437, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    13. P. Stalmeier & A. Verheijen, 2013. "Maximal endurable time states and the standard gamble: more preference reversals," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(6), pages 971-977, December.
    14. Anne Spencer, 2000. "Testing the Additive Independence Assumption in the QALY Model," Working Papers 427, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    15. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.
    16. Paul Anand & Laurence S. J. Roope & Anthony J. Culyer & Ron Smith, 2020. "Disability and multidimensional quality of life: A capability approach to health status assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(7), pages 748-765, July.
    17. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    18. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    19. Stefan A. Lipman & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Arthur E. Attema, 2020. "What is it going to be, TTO or SG? A direct test of the validity of health state valuation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(11), pages 1475-1481, November.
    20. Kevin Haninger & James K. Hammitt, 2011. "Diminishing Willingness to Pay per Quality‐Adjusted Life Year: Valuing Acute Foodborne Illness," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(9), pages 1363-1380, September.

    More about this item

    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:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:1:p:37-48. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.