A test of prospect theory

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 511-516

  Feeny, David ^a,b   Eng, Ken ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b INSTITUTE OF HEALTH ECONOMICS   (Canada)

Author keywords

Prospect theory; Standard gamble; Total hip arthroplasty; Utility

Indexed keywords

PROSPECT THEORY; STANDARD GAMBLE; TOTAL HIP ANTHROPLASTY; UTILITY;

HOSPITAL DATA PROCESSING; MEDICAL APPLICATIONS; PATIENT TREATMENT; SURGERY;

HEALTH CARE;

AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EMPIRICISM; FEMALE; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; MALE; OSTEOARTHRITIS; POSTOPERATIVE CARE; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREDICTION; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; STANDARD; THEORY; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS;

AGED; ALBERTA; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; OSTEOARTHRITIS, HIP; PATIENTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 27844433173     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462305050713     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Baron J, Asch DA, Fagerlin A, et al. Effect of assessment method on the discrepancy between judgements of health disorders people have and do not have: A web study. Med Decis Making. 2003;23:422-434.
2. Blanchard C, Feeny D, Mahon JL, et al. Is the health utilities index valid in total hip arthroplasty patients? Qual Life Res. 2004;13:339-348.
3. Blanchard C, Feeny D, Mahon JL, et al. Is the health utilities index responsive in total hip arthroplasty patients? J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:1046-1054.
4. Bleichrodt H, Pinto JL, Abellan-Perpinan JM. A consistency test of the time trade-off. J Health Econ. 2003;22:1037-1052.
5. Feeny D, Blanchard C, Mahon JL, et al. Comparing community-preference based and direct standard gamble utility scores: Evidence from elective total hip arthroplasty. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:362-372.
6. Feeny D, Blanchard CM, Mahon JL, et al. The stability of utility scores: Test-retest reliability and the interpretation of utility scores in elective total hip arthroplasty. Qual Life Res. 2004;13:15-22.
7. Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance GW, Barr R, Horsman J. Guide to design and development of health-state utility instrumentation. McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper No 90-9, June 1990.
8. Glimcher PW, Rustichini A. Neuroeconomics: The consilence of brain and decision. Science. 2004;306:447-452.
9. Gold MR, Patrick DL, Torrance GW, et al. Identifying and valuing outcomes. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996:82-134.
10. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47:263-291.
11. Laupacis A, Bourne R, Rorabeck C, et al., Effect of elective total hip replacement upon health-related quality of life. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75:1619-1626.
12. Lenert LA, Treadwell JR, Schwartz CE. Associations between health status and utilities: Implications for policy. Med Care. 1999;37:479-489.
13. Lenert LA. Treadwell JR, Schwartz CE. Associations between health status and utilities: Indirect evidence for response shift. In: Schwartz CE, Sprangers MAG, eds. Adaptation to changing health status: Response shift in quality-of-life research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2000:201-209.
14. Levy M, Levy H, Prospect theory: Much ado about nothing?" Manag Sci. 2002;48:1334-1349.
15. Mahon JL, Bourne R, Rorabeck C, et al. The effect of waiting for elective total hip arthroplasty on health-related quality of life. Can Med Assoc J. 2002;167:1115-1121.
16. Oliver A. The internal consistency of the standard gamble: Tests after adjusting for prospect theory. J Health Econ. 2003;22:659-674.
17. Norman G. Hi! How are you? Response shift, implicit theories and differing epistemologies. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:239-249.
18. Postulart D, Eddy MM. Adang, Response shift and adaptation in chronically ill patients. Med Decis Making. 2000;20:186-193.
19. Schwartz CE, Sprangers MAG, eds. Adaptation to changing health status: Response shift in quality-of-life research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2000.
20. Stratmann-Schoene D, Klose T. Health values and prospect theory: A comment. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:57-59.
21. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal - a review. J Health Econ. 1986;15:1-30.
22. Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analogue scales: Do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Making. 2001;21:329-334.
23. Ubel PA, Lowenstein G, Jepson C. Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:599-607.
24. van Osch SMC, Wakker PP, Van den Hout WB, Stiggelbout AM. Correcting biases in standard gamble and time tradeoff utilities. Med Decis Making. 2004;24:511-517.
25. Wakker PP. The data of Levy and Levy (2002) 'Prospect theory: Much ado about nothing?' actually support prospect theory. Manag Sci. 2003;49:979-981.
26. Wittenberg E, Winer EP, Weeks JC. Patient utilities for advanced cancer: Effect of current health on values. Med Care. 2005;43:173-181.