IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v30y2010i1p58-67.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Health Utility Bias: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analytic Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Jason N. Doctor

    (Department of Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy, School of Pharmacy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, jdoctor@u.washington.edu)

  • Han Bleichrodt

    (Department of Economics and iMTA/iBMG, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

  • H. Jill Lin

    (Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Menlo Park, CA)

Abstract

Background. A common assertion is that rating scale (RS) values are lower than both standard gamble (SG) and time tradeoff (TTO) values. However, differences among these methods may be due to method specific bias. Although SG and TTOs suffer systematic bias, RS responses are known to depend on the range and frequency of other health states being evaluated. Over many diverse studies this effect is predicted to diminish. Thus, a systematic review and data synthesis of RS-TTO and RS-SG difference scores may better reveal persistent dissimilarities. Purpose. The purpose of this study was to establish through systematic review and meta-analysis the net effect of biases that endure over many studies of utilities. Methods. A total of 2206 RS and TTO and 1318 RS and SG respondents in 27 studies of utilities participated. MEDLINE was searched for data from 1976 to 2004, complemented by a hand search of full-length articles and conference abstracts for 9 journals known to publish utility studies, as well as review of results and additional recommendations by 5 outside experts in the field. Two investigators abstracted the articles. We contacted the investigators of the original if required information was not available. Results. No significant effect for RS and TTO difference scores was observed: effect size (95% confidence interval [CI]) = 0.04 (−0.02, 0.09). In contrast, RS scores were significantly lower than SG scores: effect size (95% CI ) =−0.23 (−0.28, −0.19). Correcting SG scores for 3 known biases (loss aversion, framing, and probability weighting) eliminated differences between RS and SG scores: effect size (95% CI ) = 0.01 (−0.03, 0.05). Systematic bias in the RS method may exist but be heretofore unknown. Bias correction formulas were applied to mean not individual utilities. Conclusions. The results of this study do not support the common view that RS values are lower than TTO values, may suggest that TTO biases largely cancel, and support the validity of formulas for correcting SG bias.

Suggested Citation

  • Jason N. Doctor & Han Bleichrodt & H. Jill Lin, 2010. "Health Utility Bias: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analytic Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(1), pages 58-67, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:30:y:2010:i:1:p:58-67
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07312478
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07312478
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X07312478?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. James S. Dyer & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1982. "Relative Risk Aversion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(8), pages 875-886, August.
    2. Krabbe, Paul F. M. & Essink-Bot, Marie-Louise & Bonsel, Gouke J., 1997. "The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(11), pages 1641-1652, December.
    3. J. Richardson, 1991. "Economic Assessment of Health Care: Theory and Practice," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 24(1), pages 4-21, January.
    4. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    5. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    6. Torrance, George W., 1976. "Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 129-136.
    7. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Barrios, Carolina & Wakker, Peter P., 2007. "Reconciling introspective utility with revealed preference: Experimental arguments based on prospect theory," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 138(1), pages 356-378, 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. Spencer, Anne & Rivero-Arias, Oliver & Wong, Ruth & Tsuchiya, Aki & Bleichrodt, Han & Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor & Norman, Richard & Lloyd, Andrew & Clarke, Philip, 2022. "The QALY at 50: One story many voices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    2. Floortje Nooten & Jan Busschbach & Michel Agthoven & Job Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2018. "What should we know about the person behind a TTO?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(9), pages 1207-1211, December.

    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. Georgalos, Konstantinos & Paya, Ivan & Peel, David A., 2021. "On the contribution of the Markowitz model of utility to explain risky choice in experimental research," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 527-543.
    2. Bartczak, Anna & Chilton, Susan & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2015. "Wildfires in Poland: The impact of risk preferences and loss aversion on environmental choices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 300-309.
    3. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Enrico Diecidue & Ayse Öncüler, 2011. "Risk Preferences at Different Time Periods: An Experimental Investigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 975-987, May.
    4. Peter P. Wakker, 2008. "Lessons Learned by (from?) an Economist Working in Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(5), pages 690-698, September.
    5. Adam Booij & Bernard Praag & Gijs Kuilen, 2010. "A parametric analysis of prospect theory’s functionals for the general population," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 115-148, February.
    6. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2009. "Probability weighting and the ‘level’ and ‘spacing’ of outcomes: An experimental study over losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 45-63, August.
    7. Jinrui Pan & Craig S. Webb & Horst Zank, 2019. "Delayed probabilistic risk attitude: a parametric approach," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(2), pages 201-232, September.
    8. Yao Thibaut Kpegli, 2023. "Smoothing Spline Method for Measuring Prospect Theory Components," Working Papers 2303, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    9. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda, 2012. "The missing link: unifying risk taking and time discounting," ECON - Working Papers 096, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Oct 2018.
    10. Abellan-Perpiñan, Jose Maria & Bleichrodt, Han & Pinto-Prades, Jose Luis, 2009. "The predictive validity of prospect theory versus expected utility in health utility measurement," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 1039-1047, December.
    11. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Ahmed Driouchi & Olivier L’Haridon, 2011. "Risk aversion elicitation: reconciling tractability and bias minimization," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(1), pages 63-80, July.
    12. Filiz-Ozbay, Emel & Guryan, Jonathan & Hyndman, Kyle & Kearney, Melissa & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2015. "Do lottery payments induce savings behavior? Evidence from the lab," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 1-24.
    13. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L’Haridon & Horst Zank, 2010. "Separating curvature and elevation: A parametric probability weighting function," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 39-65, August.
    14. Bocqueho, Geraldine & Jacquet, Florence & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Expected Utility or Prospect Theory Maximizers? Results from a Structural Model based on Field-experiment Data," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114257, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Emmanuel Kemel, 2014. "Eliciting Prospect Theory When Consequences Are Measured in Time Units: “Time Is Not Money”," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(7), pages 1844-1859, July.
    16. Ali Al‐Nowaihi & Livio Stracca, 2003. "Behavioural Central Bank Loss Functions, Skewed Risks and Certainty Equivalence," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 71(s1), pages 21-38, September.
    17. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    18. Ehsan Taheri & Chen Wang, 2018. "Eliciting Public Risk Preferences in Emergency Situations," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 223-241, December.
    19. Polkovnichenko, Valery & Zhao, Feng, 2013. "Probability weighting functions implied in options prices," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 580-609.
    20. Ferdinand Vieider & Thorsten Chmura & Tyler Fisher & Takao Kusakawa & Peter Martinsson & Frauke Mattison Thompson & Adewara Sunday, 2015. "Within- versus between-country differences in risk attitudes: implications for cultural comparisons," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 78(2), pages 209-218, February.

    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:30:y:2010:i:1:p:58-67. 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.