Importance of preference reversals in the valuation of health and healthcare

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 95-99

  Oliver, Adam J ^a   Sorenson, Corinna ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COMMUNITY CARE; DECISION MAKING; DECISION THEORY; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EDITORIAL; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH STATUS; LIFE EXPECTANCY; PROBABILITY; PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE; SATISFACTION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 46949089550     PISSN: 14737167     EISSN: 17448379     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/14737167.8.2.95     Document Type: Editorial

References (26)

1. Hershey JC, Schoemaker PJH. Probability versus certainty equivalence methods in utility measurement: are they equivalent? Manage. Sci. 31, 1213-1231 (1985).
2. Jansen SJT, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP et al. Patient expected utilities for cancer treatments: a study on the feasibility of a chained procedure for the standard gamble and the time trade-off. Med. Decis. Making 18, 391-399 (1998).
3. Johnson EJ, Schkade DA. Bias in utility assessments: further evidence and explanations. Manage. Sci. 35, 406-424 (1989).
4. Lindman HR. The Measurement of Utilities and Subjective Probabilities. University of Michigan, MI, USA. Dissertation (1965).
5. Slovic P, Lichtenstein S. Relative importance of probabilities and payoffs in risk taking. J. Exp. Psychol. 78, 1-18 (1968).
6. Seidl C. Preference reversal. J. Econ Surv. 16, 621-655 (2002).
7. Lichtenstein S, Slovic P. Reversals of preferences between bids and choices in gambling decisions. J. Exp. Psychol. 89, 46-55 (1971).
8. Lindman HR. Inconsistent preferences among gambles. J. Fxp. Psychol. 89, 390-397 (1971).
9. Grether DM, Plott CR. Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. Am. Econ. Rev. 69, 623-638 (1979).
10. Pommerehne WW, Schneider F, Zweifel P. Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon: a re-examination. Am. Econ. Rev. 72, 569-574 (1982).
11. Reilly RJ. Preference reversal: further evidence and some suggested modifications in experimental design. Am. Econ. Rev. 72, 576-584 (1982).
12. Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice methods in health economics: moving forward. In: Advances in Health Economics. Scott A, Maynard A, Elliot R (Eds). John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK (2002).
13. Donaldson C, Shackley P. Willingness to pay for health care. In: Advances in Health Economics. Scott A, Maynard A, Elliot R (Eds). John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK (2002).
14. Gyldmark M, Morrison GC. Demand for health care in Denmark: results of a national sample survey using contingent valuation. Soc. Sci. Med. 53, 1023-1036 (2001).
15. Olsen JA. Aiding priority setting in health care: is there a role for the contingent valuation method? Health Economics 6, 603-612 (1997).
16. Olsen JA, Donaldson C. Helicopter, hearts, and hips: using willingness to pay to set priorities for public sector healthcare programmes. Soc. Sci. Med. 46,1-12 (1997).
17. Shackley P, Donaldson C, Olsen JA. Convergent validity of willingness to pay and person trade-off: results from the Euro Will surveys. Presented at: Third World Conference of the International Health Economics Association. York, England, UK, July 2001.
18. Baron J, Maxwell NP. Cost of public goods affects willingness to pay for them. J. Behav. Decision Making 9, 173-183 (1996).
19. Shackley P, Donaldson C. Should we use willingness to pay to elicit community preferences for health care? New evidence from using a 'marginal' approach. J. Health Econ. 21, 971-991 (2002).
20. Donaldson C, Shackley P, Abdalla M. Using willingness to pay to value close substitutes: carrier screening for cystic fibrosis revisited. Health Econ. 6, 145-159 (1997).
21. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 22, 57-70 (1992).
22. Stalmeier PFM, Chapman GB, de Boer AGEM et al. A fallacy of the multiplactive QALY model for low-quality weights in students and patients judging hypothetical health states. Int. J. Tech. Assess. Health Care 17, 488-496 (2001).
23. Oliver A. Further evidence of preference reversals: choice, valuation and ranking over distributions of life expectancy. J. Health Econ. 25, 803-820 (2006).
24. Bateman I, Day B, Loomes G, Orr S, Sugden R. Does a ranking procedure eliminate the usual violations of expected utility theory? Presented at: Meeting of the Preference Elicitation Group, London School of Economics, England, UK, 11 December 2002.
25. Parducci A, Weddell D. The category effect with rating scales: number of categories, number of stimuli and method of presentation. J. Fxp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 12(4), 496-516 (1986).
26. The Construction of Preference. Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (Eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2006).