健康结果和金钱之间的时间折扣是否具有特定领域:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Tiantian Tao, Junni Du, Yuyang Sun, Xin Li, Pingyu Chen
{"title":"健康结果和金钱之间的时间折扣是否具有特定领域:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Tiantian Tao, Junni Du, Yuyang Sun, Xin Li, Pingyu Chen","doi":"10.1007/s11096-024-01846-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Temporal discounting, the preference for immediate over delayed rewards, affects decision-making in domains like health and finance. Understanding the differences in how people discount health outcomes compared to monetary rewards is crucial to shaping health policy and technology assessments.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare temporal discounting parameters between health outcomes and monetary rewards and evaluate their overall relationship.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Studies were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to December 2023. Standardized mean differences (SMD) assessed discounting differences between statistical indicators, and correlation coefficients were transformed into Fisher's Z scores. Subgroup analyses based on population, tradability, magnitude, sign, and experimental process explored potential heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 32 studies were included: 29 studies (47 pairs of health and money) for the comparative meta-analysis and 19 studies (32 pairs) for the correlation meta-analysis. No significant differences were found between health and money discounting, although the individuals were more patient with the health outcomes and more impulsive with the money. In the sign effect subgroup, health discounting for delayed losses was lower than for monetary losses (SMD: - 0.293; 95% CI: - 0.458, - 0.129). The pooled correlation coefficient (r) for all studies was 0.333 (95% CI: 0.283-0.383), indicating a moderate association. In subgroup analysis, when the indicator was the discount rate, the pooled r value for 16 studies was 0.278 (95% CI: 0.231, 0.325).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although no significant statistical differences were found between health and money discounting, a moderate correlation was observed, supporting consistent discount rate settings for health technology assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":13828,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy","volume":" ","pages":"31-45"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Whether temporal discounting is domain-specific between health outcomes and money: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Tiantian Tao, Junni Du, Yuyang Sun, Xin Li, Pingyu Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11096-024-01846-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Temporal discounting, the preference for immediate over delayed rewards, affects decision-making in domains like health and finance. Understanding the differences in how people discount health outcomes compared to monetary rewards is crucial to shaping health policy and technology assessments.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare temporal discounting parameters between health outcomes and monetary rewards and evaluate their overall relationship.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Studies were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to December 2023. Standardized mean differences (SMD) assessed discounting differences between statistical indicators, and correlation coefficients were transformed into Fisher's Z scores. Subgroup analyses based on population, tradability, magnitude, sign, and experimental process explored potential heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 32 studies were included: 29 studies (47 pairs of health and money) for the comparative meta-analysis and 19 studies (32 pairs) for the correlation meta-analysis. No significant differences were found between health and money discounting, although the individuals were more patient with the health outcomes and more impulsive with the money. In the sign effect subgroup, health discounting for delayed losses was lower than for monetary losses (SMD: - 0.293; 95% CI: - 0.458, - 0.129). The pooled correlation coefficient (r) for all studies was 0.333 (95% CI: 0.283-0.383), indicating a moderate association. In subgroup analysis, when the indicator was the discount rate, the pooled r value for 16 studies was 0.278 (95% CI: 0.231, 0.325).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although no significant statistical differences were found between health and money discounting, a moderate correlation was observed, supporting consistent discount rate settings for health technology assessments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13828,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"31-45\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-024-01846-3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-024-01846-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:时间折扣,即对即时奖励的偏好,影响着健康和金融等领域的决策。了解人们对健康结果与金钱奖励的不同看法,对于制定卫生政策和技术评估至关重要。目的:本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在比较健康结果和金钱奖励之间的时间折扣参数,并评估它们之间的总体关系。方法:研究从PubMed、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane Library检索至2023年12月。标准化平均差异(SMD)评估统计指标之间的贴现差异,相关系数转化为费雪Z分数。基于人口、可交易性、大小、符号和实验过程的亚组分析探讨了潜在的异质性。结果:共纳入32项研究:29项研究(47对健康和金钱)用于比较荟萃分析,19项研究(32对)用于相关性荟萃分析。健康折扣和金钱折扣之间没有发现显著差异,尽管个人对健康结果更有耐心,对金钱更冲动。在符号效应亚组中,延迟损失的健康折扣低于金钱损失(SMD: - 0.293;95% ci: - 0.458, - 0.129)。所有研究的合并相关系数(r)为0.333 (95% CI: 0.283-0.383),表明存在中度关联。在亚组分析中,当以贴现率为指标时,16项研究的合并r值为0.278 (95% CI: 0.231, 0.325)。结论:虽然健康和金钱折扣之间没有显著的统计差异,但观察到适度的相关性,支持卫生技术评估的一致贴现率设置。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Whether temporal discounting is domain-specific between health outcomes and money: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Temporal discounting, the preference for immediate over delayed rewards, affects decision-making in domains like health and finance. Understanding the differences in how people discount health outcomes compared to monetary rewards is crucial to shaping health policy and technology assessments.

Aim: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare temporal discounting parameters between health outcomes and monetary rewards and evaluate their overall relationship.

Method: Studies were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to December 2023. Standardized mean differences (SMD) assessed discounting differences between statistical indicators, and correlation coefficients were transformed into Fisher's Z scores. Subgroup analyses based on population, tradability, magnitude, sign, and experimental process explored potential heterogeneity.

Results: A total of 32 studies were included: 29 studies (47 pairs of health and money) for the comparative meta-analysis and 19 studies (32 pairs) for the correlation meta-analysis. No significant differences were found between health and money discounting, although the individuals were more patient with the health outcomes and more impulsive with the money. In the sign effect subgroup, health discounting for delayed losses was lower than for monetary losses (SMD: - 0.293; 95% CI: - 0.458, - 0.129). The pooled correlation coefficient (r) for all studies was 0.333 (95% CI: 0.283-0.383), indicating a moderate association. In subgroup analysis, when the indicator was the discount rate, the pooled r value for 16 studies was 0.278 (95% CI: 0.231, 0.325).

Conclusion: Although no significant statistical differences were found between health and money discounting, a moderate correlation was observed, supporting consistent discount rate settings for health technology assessments.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.30%
发文量
131
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy (IJCP) offers a platform for articles on research in Clinical Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Care and related practice-oriented subjects in the pharmaceutical sciences. IJCP is a bi-monthly, international, peer-reviewed journal that publishes original research data, new ideas and discussions on pharmacotherapy and outcome research, clinical pharmacy, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacoeconomics, the clinical use of medicines, medical devices and laboratory tests, information on medicines and medical devices information, pharmacy services research, medication management, other clinical aspects of pharmacy. IJCP publishes original Research articles, Review articles , Short research reports, Commentaries, book reviews, and Letters to the Editor. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy is affiliated with the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy (ESCP). ESCP promotes practice and research in Clinical Pharmacy, especially in Europe. The general aim of the society is to advance education, practice and research in Clinical Pharmacy . Until 2010 the journal was called Pharmacy World & Science.
×
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