Are preferences over health states complete?
Most applied work in health economics accepts, if only implicitly, the axiom of completeness. Preferences over health states or health services are assumed to be well formed. They are effectively 'data' waiting to be collected. An alternative perspective suggests that values are initially incomplete and are constructed rather than just revealed in the process of answering choice-related questions such as willingness to pay or standard gambles. What might appear as measurement error may, therefore, be a more deliberate process of reflection and deliberation. This paper reports on a study that assessed the completeness of health preferences. The results show a mixed pattern. For most of the sample, values were stable over repeat administration, suggesting completeness. However, one-third of participants deliberately changed their answers and suggested that the interview process had forced them to think about their values more deeply. While it is premature to draw conclusions from this small sample, the suggestion is that completeness cannot be taken for granted. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Volume (Year): 9 (2000)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749|
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Gale, D. & Mas-Colell, A., 1975. "An equilibrium existence theorem for a general model without ordered preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 9-15, March.
- Verhoef, C. G. & Maas, A. & Stalpers, L. J. A. & Verbeek, A. L. M. & Wobbes, Th. & van Daal, W. A. J., 1991. "The feasibility of additive conjoint measurement in measuring utilities in breast cancer patients," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 39-50, February.
- Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
- Mandy Ryan & Jenny Hughes, 1997. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Assess Women's Preferences for Miscarriage Management," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 261-273.
- 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.
- Nord, Erik & Richardson, Jeff & Street, Andrew & Kuhse, Helga & Singer, Peter, 1995. "Maximizing health benefits vs egalitarianism: An Australian survey of health issues," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1429-1437, November.
- 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.
- 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.
- Stigler, George J & Becker, Gary S, 1977. "De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(2), pages 76-90, March.
- Mas-Colell, Andrew, 1974. "An equilibrium existence theorem without complete or transitive preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 237-246, December.