Analysing risk attitudes to time

Health Economics

Volumn 19, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 644-655

  Oliver, Adam ^a   Cookson, Richard ^b  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

CUA; Gambling effect; Lottery equivalents; Marginal utility; QALYs; Quantity effect; Risk attitude; Standard gamble; Time preference; Utility assessment

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RISK ASSESSMENT; TIME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PILOT PROJECTS; PROBABILITY; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; RISK; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77952777465     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.1499     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Bleichrodt H, Wakker P, Johannesson M. 1997. Characterizing QALYs by risk neutrality. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 15: 107-114.
2. Breyer F, Fuchs VR. 1982. Risk attitudes in health: an exploratory study. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper #875, Cambridge, MA.
3. Dolan P, Cookson R. 2000. A qualitative study of the extent to which health gain matters when choosing between groups of patients. Health Policy 51: 19-30. (Pubitemid 30089756)
4. Dolan P, Kahneman D. 2008. Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Economic Journal 118: 215-234.
5. Eraker SA, Sox HC. 1981. Assessment of patient's preferences for therapeutic outcomes. Medical Decision Making 1: 29-39.
6. Gafni A, Torrance GW. 1984. Risk attitude and time preference in health. Management Science 30: 440-451. (Pubitemid 14562991)
7. Hershey JC, Schoemaker PJH. 1985. Probability versus certainty equivalence methods in utility measurement: are they equivalent? Management Science 31: 1213-1231.
8. Jansen SJT, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP, Vliet Vlieland TPM, Leer J-WH, Nooy MA, Kievit K. 1998. Patient expected utilities for cancer treatments: a study on the feasibility of a chained procedure for the standard gamble and the time trade-off. Medical Decision Making 18: 391-399.
9. Johnson EJ, Schkade DA. 1989. Bias in utility assessments: further evidence and explanations. Management Science 35: 406-424.
10. Kahneman D, Wakker PP, Sarin R. 1997. Back to Bentham? Explorations of expected utility. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112: 375-405. (Pubitemid 127344008)
11. Martin AJ, Glasziou PP, Simes RJ, Lumley T. 2000. A comparison of standard gamble, time trade-off, and adjusted trade-off scores. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 16: 137-147. (Pubitemid 30263209)
12. McNeil BJ, Weichselbaum R, Pauker SG. 1978. Fallacy of the five-year survival in lung cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 229: 1397-1401. (Pubitemid 9092483)
13. Miyamoto JM. 2003. Utility assessment under expected utility and rank dependent utility assumptions. In Decision Making in Health Care: Theory, Psychology and Applications, Chapman GB, Sonnenberg F (eds). Cambridge University Press: New York, 65-109.
14. Nord E. 1999. Cost-Value Analysis in Health Care. Cambridge University Press: New York.
15. Oliver A. 2003. A quantitative and qualitative test of the Allais paradox using health outcomes. Journal of Economic Psychology 24: 35-48. (Pubitemid 36027722)
16. Pliskin JS, Shepard DS, Weinstein MC. 1980. Utility functions for life years and health status. Operations Research 28: 206-224.
17. Stiggelbout AM, Kiebert GM, Kievit J, Leer JWH, Stoter G, De Haes JCJM. 1994. Utility assessment in cancer patients: adjustment of time trade-off scores for the utility of life years and comparison with standard gamble scores. Medical Decision Making 14: 82-90. (Pubitemid 24032685)
18. van Osch SMC, Wakker PP, van den Hout WB, Stiggelbout AM. 2004. Correcting biases in standard gamble and time tradeoff utilities. Medical Decision Making 24: 511-517. (Pubitemid 39223704)
19. Verhoef LCG, de Haan AFJ, van Daal WAJ. 1994. Risk attitude in gambles with years of life: empirical support for prospect theory. Medical Decision Making 14: 194-200.