IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v22y2002i1p53-64.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discrepancies between Chained and Classic Utilities Induced by Anchoring with Occasional Adjustments

Author

Listed:
  • Peep F. M. Stalmeier

    (Nijmegen Institute for Cognition and Information, Nijmegen; the Joint Center for Radiation Oncology Arnhem-Nijmegen, University Medical Center Nijmegen; and Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam)

Abstract

Background . Classic utility assessment uses death and perfect health as end points. Chained utility assessment uses other health states as end points. It has been previously noted that these 2 assessment procedures lead to different utilities. Purpose . The author attempts to explain these discrepancies between chained and classic assessments. Method . Previous data are plotted in a uniform way to facilitate comparison. Using time trade-off and paired-comparison data, the author estimates the extent to which respondents adjust their responses when end points are varied. Data were obtained in various samples: in healthy volunteers from the general public, in students, and in women at high risk for breast cancer seeking genetic counseling. Results . The author obtained 741 valid data records from a total of 106 participants. The data replicate the pattern found previously. When compared to classic utilities, (1) chained utilities are smaller (larger) when the best (worst) end point varies and (2) the discrepancies become smaller for utilities near 0 and 1. The data reveal that there is a distinct failure to adjust responses when the end points are varied, as if the responses anchor on some master health scale. The latter finding explains the robust pattern of discrepancies. Conclusion . Decision analyses that use a mix of classic and chained utilities are not on firm ground. One should be wary of normative interpretations of new value assessment procedures. Alternative interpretations of the findings are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Peep F. M. Stalmeier, 2002. "Discrepancies between Chained and Classic Utilities Induced by Anchoring with Occasional Adjustments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(1), pages 53-64, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:22:y:2002:i:1:p:53-64
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0202200105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X0202200105
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X0202200105?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johnston, Katharine & Brown, Jackie & Gerard, Karen & O'Hanlon, Moira & Morton, Alison, 1998. "Valuing temporary and chronic health states associated with breast screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 213-222, July.
    2. Johanna Cook & Jeff Richardson & Andrew Street, 1994. "A cost utility analysis of treatment options for gallstone disease: Methodological issues and results," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(3), pages 157-168, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pinto-Prades, Jose Luis & Loomes, Graham & Brey, Raul, 2009. "Trying to estimate a monetary value for the QALY," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 553-562, May.
    2. Chen Li & Zhihua Li & Peter Wakker, 2014. "If nudge cannot be applied: a litmus test of the readers’ stance on paternalism," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(3), pages 297-315, March.
    3. Kristina Boye & Louis Matza & Kimberly Walter & Kate Brunt & Andrew Palsgrove & Aodan Tynan, 2011. "Utilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(3), pages 219-230, June.
    4. Bleichrodt, Han & Pinto, Jose Luis & Maria Abellan-Perpinan, Jose, 2003. "A consistency test of the time trade-off," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(6), pages 1037-1052, November.
    5. P. Stalmeier & A. Verheijen, 2013. "Maximal endurable time states and the standard gamble: more preference reversals," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(6), pages 971-977, December.
    6. Paul McNamee & Sharon Glendinning & Jonathan Shenfine & Nick Steen & S. Griffin & John Bond, 2004. "Chained time trade-off and standard gamble methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 5(1), pages 81-86, February.
    7. Jeremy Chancellor & Samuel Aballéa & Alison Lawrence & Rob Sheldon & Sandrine Cure & Juliette Plun-Favreau & Nick Marchant, 2008. "Preferences of Patients with Diabetes Mellitus for Inhaled versus Injectable Insulin Regimens," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 217-234, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Karen Gerard & Katharine Johnston & Jackie Brown, 1999. "The role of a pre‐scored multi‐attribute health classification measure in validating condition‐specific health state descriptions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(8), pages 685-699, December.
    2. Kristina Secnik & Louis S. Matza & Suzi Cottrell & Eric Edgell & Dominic Tilden & Sally Mannix, 2005. "Health State Utilities for Childhood Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Based on Parent Preferences in the United Kingdom," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(1), pages 56-70, January.
    3. Mirjam Locadia & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Frans J. Oort & Martin H. Prins & Mirjam A. G. Sprangers & Patrick M. M. Bossuyt, 2004. "A Comparison of 3 Valuation Methods for Temporary Health States in Patients Treated with Oral Anticoagulants," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(6), pages 625-633, November.
    4. Kristina Boye & Louis Matza & Kimberly Walter & Kate Brunt & Andrew Palsgrove & Aodan Tynan, 2011. "Utilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(3), pages 219-230, June.
    5. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.
    6. Diego Ossa & Andrew Briggs & Emma McIntosh & Warren Cowell & Tim Littlewood & Mark Sculpher, 2007. "Recombinant Erythropoietin for Chemotherapy-Related Anaemia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 223-237, March.
    7. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.
    8. J. Shannon Swan & William F. Lawrence & Jessica Roy, 2006. "Process Utility in Breast Biopsy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 347-359, July.
    9. Richard Abreu Lourenco & Marion Haas & Jane Hall & Rosalie Viney, 2017. "Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 347-362, March.
    10. Sylvia J.T. Jansen & Anne M. Stiggelbout & Peter P. Wakker & Marianne A. Nooij & Evert M. Noordijk & Job Kievit, 2000. "Unstable Preferences:," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(1), pages 62-71, January.
    11. Lisa Prosser & James Hammitt & Ron Keren, 2007. "Measuring Health Preferences for Use in Cost-Utility and Cost-Benefit Analyses of Interventions in Children," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(9), pages 713-726, September.
    12. Dirksen, Carmen D. & Ament, AndreJ. H. & Go, Peter M. N., 1996. "Diffusion of six surgical endoscopic procedures in the Netherlands. Stimulating and restraining factors," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 91-104, August.
    13. Victoria Brennan & Simon Dixon, 2014. "Response to Letter to Editor: Capturing Disutility from Waiting Time," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 421-422, April.
    14. Anne Spencer, 2000. "Testing the Additive Independence Assumption in the QALY Model," Working Papers 427, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    15. John Brazier & Mark Deverill, 1999. "A checklist for judging preference‐based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 41-51, February.
    16. Victoria Brennan & Simon Dixon, 2013. "Incorporating Process Utility into Quality Adjusted Life Years: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(8), pages 677-691, August.
    17. Peasgood, T & Ward, S & Brazier, J, 2010. "A review and meta-analysis of health state utility values in breast cancer," MPRA Paper 29950, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Jing Shen & Matthew Breckons & Luke Vale & Robert Pickard, 2019. "Using Time Trade-Off Methods to Elicit Short-Term Utilities Associated with Treatments for Bulbar Urethral Stricture," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 551-558, December.
    19. Steven Alberts & Tiffany Yu & Robert Behrens & Lindsay Renfro & Geetika Srivastava & Gamini Soori & Shaker Dakhil & Rex Mowat & John Kuebler & George Kim & Miroslaw Mazurczak & John Hornberger, 2014. "Comparative Economics of a 12-Gene Assay for Predicting Risk of Recurrence in Stage II Colon Cancer," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(12), pages 1231-1243, December.
    20. Anne Spencer, 2004. "The implications of linking questions within the SG and TTO methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(8), pages 807-818, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:22:y:2002:i:1:p:53-64. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.