The person trade-off method and the transivity principle: An example from preferences over age weighting

Health Economics

Volumn 12, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 505-510

  Dolan, Paul ^a,b   Tsuchiya, Aki ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

Person trade off; Transitivity

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; QUESTIONNAIRES; VALUE OF LIFE;

EID: 0037503863     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.731     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Abellan Perpinan J, Pinto Prades JL. Health state after treatment: a reason for discrimination? Health Econ 1999; 8: 701-707.
2. Cropper ML, Aydede SK, Portney PR. Preferences for life saving programs: how the public discounts time and age. J Risk Uncertainty 1994; 8: 243-265.
3. Neuberger J, Adams D, Maidment A et al. Assessing priorities for allocation of donor liver grafts: survey of the public and clinicians. Br Med J 1998; 317: 172-175.
4. Nord E. The relevance of health state after treatment in prioritising between different patients. J Med Ethics 1993; 19: 37-42.
5. Nord E, Richardson J, Street A et al. The significance of age and duration of effect in social evaluation of health care. Health Care Anal 1996; 4: 103-111.
6. Ratcliffe J. Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Health Econ 2000; 9: 137-148.
7. Rodriguez E, Pinto JL. The social value of health programmes: is age a relevant factor? Health Econ 2000; 9: 611-621.
8. Dolan P, Green C. Using the person trade off approach to examine differences between individual and social values. Health Econ 1998; 7: 307-312.
9. Pinto Prades JL. Is the person trade-off a valid method for allocating health care resources? Health Econ 1997; 7: 71-81.
10. Richardson J, Nord E. The importance of perspective in the measurement of quality-adjusted life years. Med Decision Making 1997; 17: 33-41.
11. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G. Distributing scarce livers: the moral reasoning of the general public. Social Sci Med 1996; 42: 1049-1055.
12. Ubel PA, Richardson J, Pinto Prades J-L. Life saving treatments and disabilities: are all QALYs created equal? Int J Technol Assess Heath Care 1999; 15: 738-748.
13. Nord E. The person trade-off approach to valuing health care programmes. Med Decision Making 1995; 15: 201-208.
14. Murray CJL. Rethinking DALYs. In The Global Burden of Disease, Murray CJL, Lopez AD (eds). Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1996.
15. Stouthard MEA, Essink-Bot M-L, Bonsel GJ et al. Disability weights for diseases in the Netherlands. Erasmus University Rotterdam, Department of Public Health, 1997.
16. Ubel PA, Kamlet M, Scanlon D, Loewenstein G. Individual utilities are inconsistent with rationing choices: a partial explanation of why Oregon's cost-effectiveness list failed. Med Decision Making 1996; 16: 108-119.
17. Baron J, Wu Z, Brennan DJ, Weeks C, Ubel P. Analog scale, magnitude estimation and person trade-off as measures of health utility: biases and their correction. J Behavioral Decision Making 1999; 14: 17-34.