IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v17y2008i5p557-577.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fitting observed and theoretical choices – women's choices about prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome

Author

Listed:
  • Valerie Seror

Abstract

Choices regarding prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome – the most frequent chromosomal defect – are particularly relevant to decision analysis, since women's decisions are based on the assessment of their risk of carrying a child with Down syndrome, and involve tradeoffs (giving birth to an affected child vs procedure‐related miscarriage). The aim of this study, based on face‐to‐face interviews with 78 women aged 25–35 with prior experience of pregnancy, was to compare the women' expressed choices towards prenatal diagnosis with those derived from theoretical models of choice (expected utility theory, rank‐dependent theory, and cumulative prospect theory). The main finding obtained in this study was that the cumulative prospect model fitted the observed choices best: both subjective transformation of probabilities and loss aversion, which are basic features of the cumulative prospect model, have to be taken into account to make the observed choices consistent with the theoretical ones. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Valerie Seror, 2008. "Fitting observed and theoretical choices – women's choices about prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 557-577, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:17:y:2008:i:5:p:557-577
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.1276
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1276
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.1276?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. Seror, Valerie & Costet, Nathalie, 1998. "Down syndrome serum marker screening: decision criteria and implicit values," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 83-96, January.
    2. Adam Oliver, 2003. "Testing rank‐dependent utility theory for health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(10), pages 863-871, October.
    3. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    4. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto, 2000. "A Parameter-Free Elicitation of the Probability Weighting Function in Medical Decision Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1485-1496, November.
    5. Chateauneuf, Alain & Wakker, Peter, 1999. "An Axiomatization of Cumulative Prospect Theory for Decision under Risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 137-145, August.
    6. Norman F. Boyd & Heather J. Sutherland & Karen Z. Heasman & David L. Tritchler & Bernard J. Cummings, 1990. "Whose Utilities for Decision Analysis?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 10(1), pages 58-67, February.
    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. Lia C.G. Verhoef & Anton F.J. De Haan & Willem A.J. Van Daal, 1994. "Risk Attitude in Gambles with Years of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(2), pages 194-200, April.
    9. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    10. A. Spencer & J. Covey & S. Chilton & M. Taylor, 2005. "Testing the internal consistency of the lottery equivalents method using health outcomes: a comment to Oliver," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 161-167, February.
    11. Mooney, Gavin & Lange, Mette, 1993. "Ante-natal screening: What constitutes 'benefit'?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 873-878, October.
    12. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. John C. Hershey & Paul J. H. Schoemaker, 1985. "Probability Versus Certainty Equivalence Methods in Utility Measurement: Are they Equivalent?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(10), pages 1213-1231, October.
    14. A.M. Stiggelbout & G.M. Kiebert & J. Kievit & J.W.H. Leer & G. Stoter & J.C.J.M. De Haes, 1994. "Utility Assessment in Cancer Patients," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(1), pages 82-90, February.
    15. George Wu, 1999. "Anxiety and Decision Making with Delayed Resolution of Uncertainty," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 159-199, April.
    16. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2004. "Is Probability Weighting Sensitive to the Magnitude of Consequences? An Experimental Investigation on Losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 217-235, May.
    17. Peter Wakker & Anne Stiggelbout, 1995. "Explaining Distortions in Utility Elicitation through the Rank-dependent Model for Risky Choices," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 15(2), pages 180-186, June.
    18. Ahmed M. Bayoumi & Donald A. Redelmeier, 2000. "Decision Analysis with Cumulative Prospect Theory," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(4), pages 404-411, October.
    19. Cairns, John & Shackley, Phil, 1999. "What price information? Modelling threshold probabilities of fetal loss," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 823-830, September.
    20. 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.
    21. Adam Oliver, 2005. "Testing the internal consistency of the lottery equivalents method using health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 149-159, February.
    22. Han Bleichrodt, 2002. "A new explanation for the difference between time trade‐off utilities and standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 447-456, July.
    23. William Furlong & David Feeny & George Torrance & Ronald Barr & John Horsman, 1992. "Guide to Design and Development of Health-State Utility Instrumentation," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 1990-09, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    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. Gajdos, Thibault & Garrouste, Clémentine & Geoffard, Pierre-Yves, 2016. "The subjective value of a life with Down syndrome: Evidence from amniocentesis decision," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 59-69.
    2. repec:dau:papers:123456789/12124 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Di Giacomo, Marina & Piacenza, Massimiliano & Siciliani, Luigi & Turati, Gilberto, 2022. "The effect of co-payments on the take-up of prenatal tests," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    4. Hensher, David A., 2010. "Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 735-752, July.
    5. Clémentine Garrouste & Jérôme Le & Eric Maurin, 2011. "The choice of detecting Down syndrome: does money matter?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(9), pages 1073-1089, September.

    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. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier, 2013. "Prospect theory in the health domain: A quantitative assessment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1057-1065.
    2. 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.
    3. Han Bleichrodt, 2002. "A new explanation for the difference between time trade‐off utilities and standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 447-456, July.
    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. Peter Brooks & Simon Peters & Horst Zank, 2014. "Risk behavior for gain, loss, and mixed prospects," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 153-182, August.
    6. Kpegli, Yao Thibaut & Corgnet, Brice & Zylbersztejn, Adam, 2023. "All at once! A comprehensive and tractable semi-parametric method to elicit prospect theory components," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    7. Arthur E. Attema & Werner B.F. Brouwer, 2014. "Deriving Time Discounting Correction Factors For Tto Tariffs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4), pages 410-425, April.
    8. Stefan A. Lipman & Werner B.F. Brouwer & Arthur E. Attema, 2019. "QALYs without bias? Nonparametric correction of time trade‐off and standard gamble weights based on prospect theory," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(7), pages 843-854, July.
    9. Doctor, Jason N. & Bleichrodt, Han & Miyamoto, John & Temkin, Nancy R. & Dikmen, Sureyya, 2004. "A new and more robust test of QALYs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 353-367, March.
    10. Horst Zank, 2010. "On probabilities and loss aversion," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 243-261, March.
    11. 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.
    12. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    13. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    14. Marcello Basili & Alain Chateauneuf & Fulvio Fontini, 2005. "Choices Under Ambiguity With Familiar And Unfamiliar Outcomes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 195-207, March.
    15. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Corina Paraschiv, 2007. "Loss Aversion Under Prospect Theory: A Parameter-Free Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(10), pages 1659-1674, October.
    16. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    17. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    18. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Alessandra Cillo, 2015. "A Tailor-Made Test of Intransitive Choice," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 63(1), pages 198-211, February.
    19. Veronika Köbberling & Peter P. Wakker, 2003. "Preference Foundations for Nonexpected Utility: A Generalized and Simplified Technique," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 395-423, August.
    20. Jose-Luis Pinto-Prades & Jose-Maria Abellan-Perpiñan, 2012. "When normative and descriptive diverge: how to bridge the difference," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(4), pages 569-584, April.

    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:17:y:2008:i:5:p:557-577. 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.