Effect of assessment method on the discrepancy between judgments of health disorders people have and do not have: A web study

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 23, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 422-434

  Baron, Jonathan ^a   Asch, David A ^a,b   Fagerlin, Angela ^c   Jepson, Christopher ^b   Loewenstein, George ^d   Riis, Jason ^c   Stineman, Margaret G ^a,b   Ubel, Peter A ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^d University of Michigan ^*

Author keywords

Adaptation; Focusing illusion; Response shift; Utility assessment

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ACNE; ADAPTATION; ARTHRITIS; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INTERNET; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT ATTITUDE; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SELF CONCEPT;

ADAPTATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CHRONIC DISEASE; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 0141678200     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X03257277     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Brickman P, Coates D, Janoff-Bulman R. Lottery winners and accident victims: is happiness relative? J Pers Soc Psychol. 1978;36:917-27.
2. Brickman P, Campbell DT. Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In: Appley MH editor. Adaptation-level theory: a symposium. New York: Academic Press; 1971.
3. Boyd NF, Sutherland HJ, Heasman KZ, Tritchler DL, Cummings BJ. Whose utilities for decision analysis? Med Decis Making. 1990;10:58-67.
4. Sackett DL, Torrance GW. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chron Dis. 1978;31:697-704.
5. DeWit GA, Busschbach JJV, DeCharro FTH. Sensitivity and perspective in the evaluation of health status: whose values count? Health Econ. 2000;9:109-96.
6. Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Sutherland HJ, Theil EC. Do patients' evaluations of a future health state change when they actually enter that state? Med Care. 1993;31:1002-12.
7. O'Connor AMC, Boyd NF, Warde P, Stolbach L, Till JE. Eliciting preferences for alternative drug therapies in oncology: influence of treatment outcome description, elicitation technique and treatment experience on preferences. J Chron Dis. 1987;40:811-8.
8. Sprangers MAG, Schwartz CE. Integrating response shift into health-related quality-of-life research: a theoretical model. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:1507-15.
9. Visser MR, Smets EM, Sprangers MA, de Haes HJ. How response shift may affect the measurement of change in fatigue. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2000;20:12-8.
10. Bernhard J, Hürny C, Maibach R, Herrmann R, Laffer U. Quality of life as subjective experience: reframing of perception in patients with colon cancer undergoing radical resection with or without adjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 1999;10:775-82.
11. Bernhard J, Lowi A, Maibach R, Hürny C. Response shift in the perception of health for utility evaluation: an explorative investigation. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37:1729-35.
12. Adang EMM, Kootstra G, Engel GL, van Hooff JP, Merckelbach HLGJ. Do retrospective and prospective quality of life assessments differ for pancreas-kidney transplant recipients? Transplant Int. 1998;11:11-15.
13. Postulart D, Adang EM. Response shift and adaptation in chronically ill patients. Med Decis Making. 2000;20:186-93.
14. Jansen SJ, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP, Nooij MA, Noordijk EM, Kievit J. Unstable preferences: a shift in valuation or an effect of the elicitation procedure? Med Decis Making. 2000;20:62-71.
15. Schkade DA, Kahneman D. Does living in California make people happy? A focusing illusion in judgments of life satisfaction. Psychol Sci. 1998;9:340-6.
16. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Hershey JC, et al. Do nonpatients underestimate the quality of life of chronic health states because of a focusing illusion? Med Decis Making. 2001;21:190-9.
17. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Jepson C. Quality of life ratings of unfamiliar disabilities: the contribution of a focusing illusion and failure to predict adaptation. Unpublished manuscript, 2002.
18. Weinstein ND. Unrealistic optimism about future life events. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1980;39:806-20.
19. Andresen EM, Vahle VJ, Lollar D. Proxy reliability: health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures for people with disability. Qual Life Res. 2001;10:609-19.
20. Todorov A, Kirchner C. Bias in proxies' reports of disability: data from the National Health Interview Survey on Disability. Am J Public Health, 2000;90:1248-53.
21. Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives: preference and value tradeoffs. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1993.
22. Jansen SJT, Kievit J, Nooij MA, Stiggelbout AM. Stability of patients' preferences for chemotherapy. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:295-306.
23. Chapman GB, Elstein AS, Kuzel TM, et al. Prostate cancer patients' utilities for health states: how it looks depends on where you stand. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:278-86.
24. Gilbert DT, Pinel EC, Wilson TD, Blumberg SJ, Wheatley TP. Immune neglect: a source of durability bias in affective forecasting. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;75:617-38.
25. Keeney RL. Value-focused thinking: a path to creative decisionmaking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1992.
26. Baron J. Norm-endorsement utilitarianism and the nature of utility. Econ Philosophy. 1996;12:165-82.