Immediate Death: Not So Bad If You Discount the Future but Still Worse than It Should Be.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Eleanor M Pullenayegum, Marcel F Jonker, Henry Bailey, Bram Roudijk
{"title":"Immediate Death: Not So Bad If You Discount the Future but Still Worse than It Should Be.","authors":"Eleanor M Pullenayegum, Marcel F Jonker, Henry Bailey, Bram Roudijk","doi":"10.1177/0272989X251325828","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectivesDiscrete choice experiments (DCEs) as a valuation method require preferences to be anchored on the quality-adjusted life-year scale, usually through tasks involving choices between immediate death and various impaired health states or between health states with varying durations of life. We sought to determine which anchoring approach aligns best with the composite time tradeoff (cTTO) method, with a view to informing a valuation protocol that uses DCEs in place of the cTTO.MethodsA total of 970 respondents from Trinidad and Tobago completed a DCE with duration survey. Tasks involved choosing between 2 lives with identical durations, followed by a third option, representing either full health for a number of years or immediate death. Data were analyzed using mixed logit models, both with and without exponential discounting for time preferences.ResultsAssuming linear time preferences, the estimated utility of immediate death was -2.1 (95% credible interval [CrI] -3.2 to -1.2) versus -0.28 (95% CrI -0.47, -0.10) when allowing for nonlinear time preferences. Under linear time preferences, the predicted health-state values anchored on duration had range (-1.03, 1) versus (0.34, 1) when anchored on immediate death. The ranges under nonlinear time preferences were (-0.54, 1) versus (-0.22, 1). The estimated discount parameter was 23% (95% CrI 22% to 25%).ConclusionsThe nonzero discount parameter indicates that time preferences were nonlinear. Nonlinear time preferences anchored on duration provided the closest match to the benchmark EQ-VT cTTO values in Trinidad and Tobago, whose range was (-0.6, 1). Thus, DCE with duration can provide similar values to cTTO provided that nonlinear time preferences are accounted for and anchoring is based on duration.HighlightsTime preferences for health states in Trinidad and Tobago were nonlinear.In discrete choice tasks, we show that immediate death has a utility less than zero.DCE utilities under nonlinear time preferences with anchoring on duration agreed well with cTTO utilities.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"272989X251325828"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X251325828","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectivesDiscrete choice experiments (DCEs) as a valuation method require preferences to be anchored on the quality-adjusted life-year scale, usually through tasks involving choices between immediate death and various impaired health states or between health states with varying durations of life. We sought to determine which anchoring approach aligns best with the composite time tradeoff (cTTO) method, with a view to informing a valuation protocol that uses DCEs in place of the cTTO.MethodsA total of 970 respondents from Trinidad and Tobago completed a DCE with duration survey. Tasks involved choosing between 2 lives with identical durations, followed by a third option, representing either full health for a number of years or immediate death. Data were analyzed using mixed logit models, both with and without exponential discounting for time preferences.ResultsAssuming linear time preferences, the estimated utility of immediate death was -2.1 (95% credible interval [CrI] -3.2 to -1.2) versus -0.28 (95% CrI -0.47, -0.10) when allowing for nonlinear time preferences. Under linear time preferences, the predicted health-state values anchored on duration had range (-1.03, 1) versus (0.34, 1) when anchored on immediate death. The ranges under nonlinear time preferences were (-0.54, 1) versus (-0.22, 1). The estimated discount parameter was 23% (95% CrI 22% to 25%).ConclusionsThe nonzero discount parameter indicates that time preferences were nonlinear. Nonlinear time preferences anchored on duration provided the closest match to the benchmark EQ-VT cTTO values in Trinidad and Tobago, whose range was (-0.6, 1). Thus, DCE with duration can provide similar values to cTTO provided that nonlinear time preferences are accounted for and anchoring is based on duration.HighlightsTime preferences for health states in Trinidad and Tobago were nonlinear.In discrete choice tasks, we show that immediate death has a utility less than zero.DCE utilities under nonlinear time preferences with anchoring on duration agreed well with cTTO utilities.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信