IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v29y2009i4p513-520.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Construction of Health Preferences: A Comparison of Direct Value Assessment and Personal Narratives

Author

Listed:
  • José H. Kerstholt

    (Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands, jose.kerstholt@tno.nl)

  • Fred van der Zwaard

    (Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands)

  • Hans Bart

    (Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands)

  • Anita Cremers

    (Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands)

Abstract

Background. Most terminally ill patients prefer to die at home rather than at an institution. However, patients are often insufficiently aware of the downsides of staying at home, which signals a need for effective decision aids. Objectives. The main purpose of the present study was to compare indirect methods of value elicitation (personal narratives [``stories''] in text or video) with a direct method (assessment of the subjective importance of each attribute). Methods . The authors asked 183 participants to evaluate 3 possible places to die: home, hospice, and nursing home. The participants received 1 of 3 value elicitation methods. The main dependent variable was participants' evaluations of the choice options before and after value elicitation, measured on a 100-point scale. Results . A shift occurred between pre- and posttest, F(4, 342) = 4.11, P = 0.003, only with the indirect methods. When text and videos were used, participants became more positive about a hospice (text: 41.9 to 49.1; video: 52.9 to 60.3). In the video condition, participants also became more positive about a nursing home (from 20.9 to 24.9). Conclusion . Stories have more impact in shaping people's preferences than merely asking for an assessment of attribute importance. The most straightforward explanation for this effect is that stories, particularly when presented in video, provide a better image of potential consequences.

Suggested Citation

  • José H. Kerstholt & Fred van der Zwaard & Hans Bart & Anita Cremers, 2009. "Construction of Health Preferences: A Comparison of Direct Value Assessment and Personal Narratives," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(4), pages 513-520, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:4:p:513-520
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09331809
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X09331809
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X09331809?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Paul R. Falzer & Melissa Garman, 2012. "Image Theory's counting rule in clinical decision making: Does it describe how clinicians make patient-specific forecasts?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(3), pages 268-281, May.
    2. Anita Cremers & Hester Stubbé & Dolf van der Beek & Maaike Roelofs & José Kerstholt, 2015. "Does playing the serious game B-SaFe! make citizens more aware of man-made and natural risks in their environment?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(10), pages 1280-1292, November.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:3:p:268-281 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:29:y:2009:i:4:p:513-520. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.