在卫生经济评价中运用经验效用的定量研究。

Q2 Medicine
Journal of market access & health policy Pub Date : 2025-08-28 eCollection Date: 2025-09-01 DOI:10.3390/jmahp13030043
Damien S E Broekharst, Sjaak Bloem, Robert J Blomme, Edward A G Groenland, Patrick P T Jeurissen, Michel van Agthoven
{"title":"在卫生经济评价中运用经验效用的定量研究。","authors":"Damien S E Broekharst, Sjaak Bloem, Robert J Blomme, Edward A G Groenland, Patrick P T Jeurissen, Michel van Agthoven","doi":"10.3390/jmahp13030043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Expected utility has been deployed in order to predict health behaviour in health economic evaluation. However, only limited variance in health behaviour is explained by this construct. This limited explained variance is often attributed to the dubious foundational postulates underlying the construct (e.g., absolute rationality, complete information, fixed preferences). Due to these limitations it has been hypothesized that substituting or complementing expected utility with experienced utility may enhance predictions of health behaviour. As this hypothesis has not yet been subjected to empirical scrutiny, this study examines if deployment of experienced utility or expected utility and experienced utility combined enhances predictions of health behaviour relative to expected utility separately.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Online questionnaires were distributed across a panel of Dutch citizens (N = 2550). The questionnaire includes items and scales on sample characteristics, expected utility, experienced utility and health behaviour. Data analysis was conducted by employing descriptive, reliability, validity and model statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Experienced utility has a significant direct effect on health behaviour that is stronger than expected utility. Experienced utility also explains more variance in health behaviour than expected utility. Expected utility and experienced utility combined have a significant direct and indirect effect on health behaviour that is stronger than each type of utility separately. Expected utility and experienced utility combined also explain more variance in health behaviour than each type of utility separately.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Deploying experienced utility separately or in combination with expected utility in health economic evaluation seems pertinent as it has considerable impact on health behaviour and may provide health economists with an even sturdier foundation for conducting health economic evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":73811,"journal":{"name":"Journal of market access & health policy","volume":"13 3","pages":"43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12452304/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deploying Experienced Utility in Health Economic Evaluation: A Quantitative Study.\",\"authors\":\"Damien S E Broekharst, Sjaak Bloem, Robert J Blomme, Edward A G Groenland, Patrick P T Jeurissen, Michel van Agthoven\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/jmahp13030043\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Expected utility has been deployed in order to predict health behaviour in health economic evaluation. However, only limited variance in health behaviour is explained by this construct. This limited explained variance is often attributed to the dubious foundational postulates underlying the construct (e.g., absolute rationality, complete information, fixed preferences). Due to these limitations it has been hypothesized that substituting or complementing expected utility with experienced utility may enhance predictions of health behaviour. As this hypothesis has not yet been subjected to empirical scrutiny, this study examines if deployment of experienced utility or expected utility and experienced utility combined enhances predictions of health behaviour relative to expected utility separately.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Online questionnaires were distributed across a panel of Dutch citizens (N = 2550). The questionnaire includes items and scales on sample characteristics, expected utility, experienced utility and health behaviour. Data analysis was conducted by employing descriptive, reliability, validity and model statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Experienced utility has a significant direct effect on health behaviour that is stronger than expected utility. Experienced utility also explains more variance in health behaviour than expected utility. Expected utility and experienced utility combined have a significant direct and indirect effect on health behaviour that is stronger than each type of utility separately. Expected utility and experienced utility combined also explain more variance in health behaviour than each type of utility separately.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Deploying experienced utility separately or in combination with expected utility in health economic evaluation seems pertinent as it has considerable impact on health behaviour and may provide health economists with an even sturdier foundation for conducting health economic evaluation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of market access & health policy\",\"volume\":\"13 3\",\"pages\":\"43\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12452304/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of market access & health policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/jmahp13030043\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/9/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of market access & health policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jmahp13030043","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在卫生经济评价中,预期效用已被用于预测卫生行为。然而,这种结构只能解释健康行为的有限差异。这种有限的解释差异通常归因于可疑的基本假设(例如,绝对理性,完整信息,固定偏好)。由于这些限制,人们假设用经验效用替代或补充预期效用可能会增强对健康行为的预测。由于这一假设尚未受到实证审查,本研究考察了经验效用或预期效用与经验效用相结合的部署是否能提高相对于预期效用的健康行为预测。方法:对荷兰公民进行在线问卷调查(N = 2550)。问卷包括样本特征、预期效用、经验效用和健康行为的项目和量表。采用描述性统计、信度统计、效度统计和模型统计进行数据分析。结果:体验效用对健康行为有显著的直接影响,且强于预期效用。经验效用也比预期效用更能解释健康行为的差异。预期效用和经验效用结合起来对健康行为有显著的直接和间接影响,其影响强于单独的每种效用。预期效用和经验效用的结合也比单独的每种效用更能解释健康行为的差异。结论:在卫生经济评估中单独部署经验效用或与预期效用相结合似乎是相关的,因为它对卫生行为有相当大的影响,并可能为卫生经济学家进行卫生经济评估提供更坚实的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Deploying Experienced Utility in Health Economic Evaluation: A Quantitative Study.

Background: Expected utility has been deployed in order to predict health behaviour in health economic evaluation. However, only limited variance in health behaviour is explained by this construct. This limited explained variance is often attributed to the dubious foundational postulates underlying the construct (e.g., absolute rationality, complete information, fixed preferences). Due to these limitations it has been hypothesized that substituting or complementing expected utility with experienced utility may enhance predictions of health behaviour. As this hypothesis has not yet been subjected to empirical scrutiny, this study examines if deployment of experienced utility or expected utility and experienced utility combined enhances predictions of health behaviour relative to expected utility separately.

Methods: Online questionnaires were distributed across a panel of Dutch citizens (N = 2550). The questionnaire includes items and scales on sample characteristics, expected utility, experienced utility and health behaviour. Data analysis was conducted by employing descriptive, reliability, validity and model statistics.

Results: Experienced utility has a significant direct effect on health behaviour that is stronger than expected utility. Experienced utility also explains more variance in health behaviour than expected utility. Expected utility and experienced utility combined have a significant direct and indirect effect on health behaviour that is stronger than each type of utility separately. Expected utility and experienced utility combined also explain more variance in health behaviour than each type of utility separately.

Conclusions: Deploying experienced utility separately or in combination with expected utility in health economic evaluation seems pertinent as it has considerable impact on health behaviour and may provide health economists with an even sturdier foundation for conducting health economic evaluation.

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
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信