Responses to standard gambles: Are preferences 'well constructed'?

Health Economics

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 37-48

  Baker, Rachel ^a   Robinson, Angela ^b  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Considering others; Preferences; Qualitative methods; Separability; Standard gambles

Indexed keywords

ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUALITY OF LIFE;

GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUALITY OF LIFE;

EID: 1642556927     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.795     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J Health Econ 1996; 15(2):209-231.
2. Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinstein MC. Preferences for health outcomes: comparison of assessment methods. Med Decision Making 1984; 4(3): 315-329.
3. Loomes G, McKenzie L. The use of QALYs in health care decision making. Soc Sci Med 1989; 28: 299-308.
4. Dolan P, Sutton M. Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values. Soc Sci Med 1997, 44(10): 1519-1530.
5. Gregory R, Lichenstein S, Slovic P. Valuing environmental resources: a constructive approach. J. Risk Uncertainty 1993; 7: 177-197.
6. Morris J, Durand A. Category rating methods: numerical and verbal scales. York, Mimeo, Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 1989.
7. Robinson A, Dolan P, Williams A. Valuing health status using VAS and TTO: what lies behind the numbers? Soc Sci Med 1997; 45(8): 1289-1297.
8. Spencer A. Testing the additive independence assumption in the QALY model. Working paper No 427. Queen Mary College, University of London, London, 2001.
9. Robinson A, Loomes G, Jones-Lee M. Visual analog scales, standard gambles, and relative risk aversion. Med Decision Making 2001; 21: 17-27.
10. Dolan P, Green C. Using the person trade-off approach to examine differences between individual and social values. Health Econ 1998; 7: 307-312.
11. O'Hanlon M, Fox-Rushby J, Buxton MJ. A qualitative and quantitative comparison of the EuroQol and time trade-off techniques. Int J Health Sci 1994; 5(3): 85-97.
12. Spencer A. The time trade-off method: an exploratory study. Working paper 437. Queen Mary College, University of London, London, 2001.
13. Beattie J, Covey J, Dolan P, et al. On the contingent valuation of safety and the safety of contingent valuation. J Risk Uncertainty 1998; 17: 5-25.
14. Shiell A, Gold L. Contingent valuation in health care and the persistence of embedding effects without the warm glow. J Econ Psychol 2002; 23: 251-262.
15. Ryan M, Reeves C, Entwistle V. Listening to respondents: a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses. HESG discussion paper, UEA meeting, 2002.
16. Payne JW, Bettman JR, Schkade DA. Measuring constructed preferences: towards a building code. J Risk Uncertainty 1999; 19(1-3): 243-270.
17. Jones-Lee MW, Loomes G, Philips PR. Valuing the prevention of nonfatal road injuries: contingent valuation vs standard gambles. Oxford Econ Papers 1995; 47: 676.
18. O'Reilly D, Hopkin J, Loomes G, Jones-Lee M, Philips P, McMahon K, Ives D, Soby B, Ball D, Kemp R. The value of road safety - UK research on the valuation of preventing nonfatal injuries. J Transp Econ Policy 1994; 28: 45-59.
19. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ 1996; 5(2): 141-154.
20. NVivo qualititative data analysis program. Melbourne, Australia: QSR International Pty Ltd, 2000.
21. Gerard K, Dobson M, Hall J. Framing and labelling effects in health descriptions: quality adjusted life years for treatment of breast cancer. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46(1): 77-84.
22. Morrison GC. The endowment effect, expected utility. Scot J Political Econ 2000; 47: 183-197.
23. Culyer AJ. The normative economics of health care finance and provision. Oxford Rev Econ Policy 1989; 5(1): 34-58.
24. Dolan P. The measurement of health-related quality of life. In Handbook of Health Economics, Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP (eds). Elsevier: Oxford, 2000; 1723-1760.
25. Donaldson C, Birch S, Gafni A. The distribution problem in economic evaluation: income and the valuation of costs and consequences of health care programmes. Health Econ 2002; 11: 55-70.
26. Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. The validity of Qalys: an experimental test of constant proportional tradeoff and utility independence. Med Decision Making 1997; 17: 21-32.
27. Broome J. Choice and value in economics. Oxford Econ Papers 1978; 30: 313-333.
28. Sen A. Plural utility. Proc Aristotelian Soc 1981; 80: 193-215.
29. Broome J, Oalys. J Public Econ 1993; 50: 149-167.
30. Dolan P, Roberts J. Modelling valuation for Eq-5d health states: an alternative model using differences in valuations. Med Care 2002; 40: 442-446.
31. Tsevat J. What do utilities measure? Med Care 2000; 38(9 (Suppl II)): II-160-II-164.