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
Medical Decision Making Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-20 DOI:10.1177/0272989X251325828
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":"376-384"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11992645/pdf/","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":"2025/3/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","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.

立即死亡:如果你不考虑未来,那还不算太坏,但仍然比它应该的更糟。
目的离散选择实验(dce)作为一种评估方法,通常通过涉及立即死亡和各种健康受损状态或不同寿命持续时间的健康状态之间的选择的任务,将偏好锚定在质量调整的生命-年尺度上。我们试图确定哪种锚定方法最符合复合时间权衡(cTTO)方法,以期通知使用dce代替cTTO的估值协议。方法对970名来自特立尼达和多巴哥的调查对象进行了持续时间调查。任务包括在两种寿命相同的生命之间进行选择,然后是第三种选择,代表多年的完全健康或立即死亡。数据分析使用混合logit模型,有和没有指数贴现的时间偏好。假设线性时间偏好,即时死亡的估计效用为-2.1(95%可信区间[CrI] -3.2至-1.2),而当允许非线性时间偏好时,估计效用为-0.28(95%可信区间[CrI] -0.47, -0.10)。在线性时间偏好下,以持续时间为锚定的健康状态预测值的范围为(-1.03,1),而以立即死亡为锚定的健康状态预测值的范围为(0.34,1)。非线性时间偏好下的范围为(- 0.54,1)vs(- 0.22,1)。估计的折扣参数为23% (95% CrI为22%至25%)。结论非零折现参数表明时间偏好是非线性的。基于持续时间的非线性时间偏好提供了与特立尼达和多巴哥基准EQ-VT cTTO值最接近的匹配,其范围为(-0.6,1)。因此,如果考虑非线性时间偏好和基于持续时间的锚定,具有持续时间的DCE可以提供与cTTO相似的值。特立尼达和多巴哥对健康状况的时间偏好是非线性的。在离散选择任务中,我们证明立即死亡的效用小于零。基于时间锚定的非线性时间偏好下的DCE效用与cTTO效用基本一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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