Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:34:28.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A test of prospect theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2005

David Feeny  and
Ken Eng
David Feeny
Affiliation:
University of Alberta and Institute of Health Economics
Ken Eng
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Economics
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Prospect theory (PT) hypothesizes that people judge states relative to a reference point, usually assumed to be their current health. States better than the reference point are valued on a concave portion of the utility function; worse states are valued on a convex portion. Using prospectively collected utility scores, the objective is to test empirically implications of PT.

Methods: Osteoarthritis (OA) patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty periodically provided standard gamble scores for three OA hypothetical states describing mild, moderate, and severe OA as well as their subjectively defined current state (SDCS). Our hypothesis was that most patients improved between the pre- and postsurgery assessments. According to PT, scores for hypothetical states previously > SDCS but now < SDCS should be lower at the postsurgery assessment.

Results: Fourteen patients met the criteria for testing the hypothesis. Predictions were confirmed for 0 patients; there was no change or mixed results for 6 patients (42.9 percent); and scores moved in the direction opposite to that predicted by PT for 8 patients (57.1 percent).

Conclusions: In general, the direction and magnitude of the changes in hypothetical-state scores do not conform to the predictions of PT.

Keywords

Prospect theoryStandard gambleUtilityTotal hip arthroplasty
Type
RESEARCH REPORTS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , October 2005 , pp. 511 - 516
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baron J, Asch DA, Fagerlin A, et al. 2003 Effect of assessment method on the discrepancy between judgements of health disorders people have and do not have: A web study. Med Decis Making. 23: 422– 434.Google Scholar
Blanchard C, Feeny D, Mahon JL, et al. 2004 Is the health utilities index valid in total hip arthroplasty patients? Qual Life Res. 13: 339– 348.Google Scholar
Blanchard C, Feeny D, Mahon JL, et al. 2003 Is the health utilities index responsive in total hip arthroplasty patients? J Clin Epidemiol. 56: 1046– 1054.Google Scholar
Bleichrodt H, Pinto JL, Abellan-Perpinan JM. 2003 A consistency test of the time trade-off. J Health Econ. 22: 1037– 1052.Google Scholar
Feeny D, Blanchard C, Mahon JL, et al. 2003 Comparing community-preference based and direct standard gamble utility scores: Evidence from elective total hip arthroplasty. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 19: 362– 372.Google Scholar
Feeny D, Blanchard CM, Mahon JL, et al. 2004 The stability of utility scores: Test-retest reliability and the interpretation of utility scores in elective total hip arthroplasty. Qual Life Res. 13: 15– 22.Google Scholar
Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance GW, Barr R, Horsman J. 1990 Guide to design and development of health-state utility instrumentation. McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper No 90-9, June.Google Scholar
Glimcher PW, Rustichini A. 2004 Neuroeconomics: The consilence of brain and decision. Science. 306: 447– 452.Google Scholar
Gold MR, Patrick DL, Torrance GW, et al. 1996: Identifying and valuing outcomes. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 82– 134.
Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1979 Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 47: 263– 291.Google Scholar
Laupacis A, Bourne R, Rorabeck C, et al., 1993; Effect of elective total hip replacement upon health-related quality of life. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 75: 1619– 1626.Google Scholar
Lenert LA, Treadwell JR, Schwartz CE. 1999 Associations between health status and utilities: Implications for policy. Med Care. 37: 479– 489.Google Scholar
Lenert LA. Treadwell JR, Schwartz CE. 2000: Associations between health status and utilities: Indirect evidence for response shift. In: Schwartz CE, Sprangers MAG, eds. Adaptation to changing health status: Response shift in quality-of-life research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 201– 209.
Levy M, Levy H, 2002; Prospect theory: Much ado about nothing?” Manag Sci. 48: 1334– 1349.Google Scholar
Mahon JL, Bourne R, Rorabeck C, et al. 2002 The effect of waiting for elective total hip arthroplasty on health-related quality of life. Can Med Assoc J. 167: 1115– 1121.Google Scholar
Oliver A. 2003 The internal consistency of the standard gamble: Tests after adjusting for prospect theory. J Health Econ. 22: 659– 674.Google Scholar
Norman G. 2003 Hi! How are you? Response shift, implicit theories and differing epistemologies. Qual Life Res. 12: 239– 249.Google Scholar
Postulart D, Eddy MM. 2000; Adang, Response shift and adaptation in chronically ill patients. Med Decis Making. 20: 186– 193.Google Scholar
Schwartz CE, Sprangers MAG, eds. 2000. Adaptation to changing health status: Response shift in quality-of-life research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association;
Stratmann-Schoene D, Klose T. 2001 Health values and prospect theory: A comment. Med Decis Making. 21: 57– 59.Google Scholar
Torrance GW. 1986 Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal—a review. J Health Econ. 15: 1– 30.Google Scholar
Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. 2001 Visual analogue scales: Do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Making. 21: 329– 334.Google Scholar
Ubel PA, Lowenstein G, Jepson C. 2003 Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Qual Life Res. 12: 599– 607.Google Scholar
van Osch SMC, Wakker PP, Van den Hout WB, Stiggelbout AM. 2004 Correcting biases in standard gamble and time tradeoff utilities. Med Decis Making. 24: 511– 517.Google Scholar
Wakker PP. 2003 The data of Levy and Levy (2002) ‘Prospect theory: Much ado about nothing?’ actually support prospect theory. Manag Sci. 49: 979– 981.Google Scholar
Wittenberg E, Winer EP, Weeks JC. 2005 Patient utilities for advanced cancer: Effect of current health on values. Med Care. 43: 173– 181.Google Scholar