IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v12y2003i6p505-510.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The person trade‐off method and the transitivity principle: an example from preferences over age weighting

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Dolan
  • Aki Tsuchiya

Abstract

The person trade‐off (PTO) is increasingly being used to elicit preferences in health. This paper explores the measurement properties of the PTO method in the context of a study about how members of the public prioritise between patients of different ages. In particular, it considers whether PTO responses satisfy the transitivity principle; that is, whether one PTO response can be inferred from two other PTO responses. The results suggest that very few responses to PTO questions satisfy cardinal transitivity condition. However, this study has produced results that suggest that cardinal transitivity will hold, on average, when respondents who fail to satisfy the ordinal transitivity condition have been excluded from the analysis. This suggests that future PTO studies should build in checks for ordinal transitivity. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Dolan & Aki Tsuchiya, 2003. "The person trade‐off method and the transitivity principle: an example from preferences over age weighting," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(6), pages 505-510, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:12:y:2003:i:6:p:505-510
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.731
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.731
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.731?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. Eva Rodríguez-Míguez & José Luis Pinto, 1999. "The social value of health programs: Is age a relevant factor?," Working Papers 9904, Universidade de Vigo, Departamento de Economía Aplicada.
    2. Jose‐Maria Abellan‐Perpiñan & Jose‐Luis Pinto‐Prades, 1999. "Health state after treatment: a reason for discrimination?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(8), pages 701-707, December.
    3. Erik Nord, 1995. "The Person-trade-off Approach to Valuing Health Care Programs," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 15(3), pages 201-208, August.
    4. Ubel, Peter A. & Loewenstein, George, 1996. "Distributing scarce livers: The moral reasoning of the general public," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 42(7), pages 1049-1055, April.
    5. Jeff Richardson & Erik Nord, 1997. "The importance of Perspective in the Measurement of Quality-adjusted Life Years," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(1), pages 33-41, February.
    6. Peter A. Ubel & George Loewenstein & Dennis Scanlon & Mark Kamlet, 1996. "Individual Utilities Are Inconsistent with Rationing Choices," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(2), pages 108-116, June.
    7. Cropper, Maureen L & Aydede, Sema K & Portney, Paul R, 1994. "Preferences for Life Saving Programs: How the Public Discounts Time and Age," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 243-265, May.
    8. Eva Rodríguez & José Luis Pinto, 2000. "The social value of health programmes: is age a relevant factor?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(7), pages 611-621, October.
    9. Julie Ratcliffe, 2000. "Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 137-148, March.
    10. Paul Dolan & Colin Green, 1998. "Using the person trade‐off approach to examine differences between individual and social values," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(4), pages 307-312, June.
    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. Abellán Perpiñán, José Mª & Sánchez Martínez,Fernando I. & Martínez Pérez, Jorge E., 2007. "La medición del bienestar social relacionado con la salud/The Measurement of the Health Related Social Welfare," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 25, pages 927-950, Diciembre.
    2. Lars Østerdal, 2009. "The lack of theoretical support for using person trade-offs in QALY-type models," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(4), pages 429-436, October.
    3. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2006. "Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 797-811, August.
    4. Lars Peter Østerdal, 2004. "QALYs, Person Trade-Offs, and the Pareto Principle," Discussion Papers 04-10, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    5. Bringedal, Berit & Iversen, Tor & Kristiansen, Ivar Sønbø, 2009. "VERDIEN AV LIV OG HELSE Hvor mye bør samfunnet være villig til å betale for helseforbedringer?," HERO Online Working Paper Series 2003:6, University of Oslo, Health Economics Research Programme.
    6. Jonathan Karnon & Andrew Partington, 2015. "Cost-Value Analysis and the SAVE: A Work in Progress, But an Option for Localised Decision Making?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(12), pages 1281-1288, December.
    7. Carlota Quintal, 2009. "Aversion to geographic inequality and geographic variation in preferences in the context of healthcare," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 121-136, June.
    8. Doctor, Jason N. & Miyamoto, John & Bleichrodt, Han, 2009. "When are person tradeoffs valid?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 1018-1027, September.

    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. Paul Dolan & Rebecca Shaw & Aki Tsuchiya & Alan Williams, 2005. "QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 197-208, February.
    2. Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte, 2004. "Investigating the social value of health changes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 1101-1116, November.
    3. Richardson, Jeff & McKie, John, 2007. "Economic evaluation of services for a National Health Scheme: The case for a fairness-based framework," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 785-799, July.
    4. Adele Diederich & Jeannette Winkelhage & Norman Wirsik, 2011. "Age as a Criterion for Setting Priorities in Health Care? A Survey of the German Public View," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-10, August.
    5. Rodríguez-Míguez, Eva & Herrero, Carmen & Pinto-Prades, José Luis, 2004. "Using a point system in the management of waiting lists: the case of cataracts," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 585-594, August.
    6. John McKie & Bradley Shrimpton & Jeff Richardson & Rosalind Hurworth, 2011. "The monetary value of a life year: evidence from a qualitative study of treatment costs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(8), pages 945-957, August.
    7. Mira Johri & Laura J. Damschroder & Brian J. Zikmund‐Fisher & Peter A. Ubel, 2005. "The importance of age in allocating health care resources: does intervention‐type matter?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(7), pages 669-678, July.
    8. Shah, Koonal K., 2009. "Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: A review of the literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 77-84, December.
    9. Lars Østerdal, 2009. "The lack of theoretical support for using person trade-offs in QALY-type models," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(4), pages 429-436, October.
    10. Aki Tsuchiya, 2012. "Distributional Judgements in the Context of Economic Evaluation," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 38, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Robson, Matthew & O’Donnell, Owen & Van Ourti, Tom, 2024. "Aversion to health inequality — Pure, income-related and income-caused," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    12. Michaël Schwarzinger & Jean‐Louis Lanoë & Erik Nord & Isabelle Durand‐Zaleski, 2004. "Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade‐off responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 171-181, February.
    13. Damschroder, Laura J. & Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. & Ubel, Peter A., 2005. "The impact of considering adaptation in health state valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 267-277, July.
    14. Mæstad, Ottar & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2009. "Eliciting people's preferences for the distribution of health: A procedure for a more precise estimation of distributional weights," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 570-577, May.
    15. Jeannette Winkelhage & Adele Diederich, 2012. "The Relevance of Personal Characteristics in Allocating Health Care Resources—Controversial Preferences of Laypersons with Different Educational Backgrounds," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-21, January.
    16. Denburg, Avram E. & Ungar, Wendy J. & Chen, Shiyi & Hurley, Jeremiah & Abelson, Julia, 2020. "Does moral reasoning influence public values for health care priority setting?: A population-based randomized stated preference survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(6), pages 647-658.
    17. Edward C. Mansley & Elamin H. Elbasha, 2003. "Preferences and person trade‐offs: forcing consistency or inconsistency in health‐related quality of life measures?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(3), pages 187-198, March.
    18. Richardson, Jeff & Sinha, Kompal & Iezzi, Angelo & Maxwell, Aimee, 2012. "Maximising health versus sharing: Measuring preferences for the allocation of the health budget," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(8), pages 1351-1361.
    19. Ubel, Peter A. & Loewenstein, George & Scanlon, Dennis & Kamlet, Mark, 1998. "Value measurement in cost-utility analysis: explaining the discrepancy between rating scale and person trade-off elicitations," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 33-44, January.
    20. Nord, Erik & Johansen, Rune, 2014. "Concerns for severity in priority setting in health care: A review of trade-off data in preference studies and implications for societal willingness to pay for a QALY," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 281-288.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:hlthec:v:12:y:2003:i:6:p:505-510. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.