Testing Nonmonotonicity in Health Preferences.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Medical Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-10 DOI:10.1177/0272989X231207814
Jose-Maria Abellan-Perpiñan, Jorge-Eduardo Martinez-Perez, Jose-Luis Pinto-Prades, Fernando-Ignacio Sanchez-Martinez
{"title":"Testing Nonmonotonicity in Health Preferences.","authors":"Jose-Maria Abellan-Perpiñan, Jorge-Eduardo Martinez-Perez, Jose-Luis Pinto-Prades, Fernando-Ignacio Sanchez-Martinez","doi":"10.1177/0272989X231207814","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The main aim of this article is to test monotonicity in life duration. Previous findings suggest that, for poor health states, longer durations are preferred to shorter durations up to some threshold or maximum endurable time (MET), and shorter durations are preferred to longer ones after that threshold.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Monotonicity in duration is tested through 2 ordinal tasks: choices and rankings. A convenience sample (<i>n</i> = 90) was recruited in a series of experimental sessions in which participants had to rank-order health episodes and to choose between them, presented in pairs. Health episodes result from the combination of 7 EQ-5D-3L health states and 5 durations. Monotonicity is tested comparing the percentage rate of participants whose preferences were monotonic with the percentage of participants with nonmonotonic preferences for each health state. In addition, to test the existence of preference reversals, we analyze the fraction of people who switch their preference from rankings to choices.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Monotonicity is frequently violated across the 7 EQ-5D health states. Preference patterns for individuals describe violations ranging from almost 49% with choices to about 71% with rankings. Analysis performed by separate states shows that the mean rates of violations with choices and ranking are about 22% and 34%, respectively. We also find new evidence of preference reversals and some evidence-though scarce-of transitivity violations in choices.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our results show that there is a medium range of health states for which preferences are nonmonotonic. These findings support previous evidence on MET preferences and introduce a new \"choice-ranking\" preference reversal. It seems that the use of 2 tasks with a similar response scale may make preference reversals less substantial, although it remains important and systematic.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Two procedures based on ordinal comparisons are used to elicit preferences: direct choices and rankings. Our study reports significant rates of nonmonotonic preferences (or maximum endurable time [MET]-type preferences) for different combinations of durations and EQ-5D health states.Analysis for separate health states shows that the mean rates of nonmonotonicity range from 22% (choices) to 34% (rankings), but within-subject analysis shows that nonmonotonicity is even higher, ranging from 49% (choices) to 71% (rankings). These violations challenge the validity of multiplicative QALY models.We find that the MET phenomenon may affect particularly those EQ-5D health states that are in the middle of the severity scale and not so much the extreme health states (i.e., very mild and very severe states).We find new evidence of preference reversals even using 2 procedures of a similar (ordinal) nature. Percentage rates of preference reversals range from 1.5% to 33%. We also find some (although scarce) evidence on violations of transitivity.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"42-52"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","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/10.1177/0272989X231207814","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The main aim of this article is to test monotonicity in life duration. Previous findings suggest that, for poor health states, longer durations are preferred to shorter durations up to some threshold or maximum endurable time (MET), and shorter durations are preferred to longer ones after that threshold.

Methods: Monotonicity in duration is tested through 2 ordinal tasks: choices and rankings. A convenience sample (n = 90) was recruited in a series of experimental sessions in which participants had to rank-order health episodes and to choose between them, presented in pairs. Health episodes result from the combination of 7 EQ-5D-3L health states and 5 durations. Monotonicity is tested comparing the percentage rate of participants whose preferences were monotonic with the percentage of participants with nonmonotonic preferences for each health state. In addition, to test the existence of preference reversals, we analyze the fraction of people who switch their preference from rankings to choices.

Results: Monotonicity is frequently violated across the 7 EQ-5D health states. Preference patterns for individuals describe violations ranging from almost 49% with choices to about 71% with rankings. Analysis performed by separate states shows that the mean rates of violations with choices and ranking are about 22% and 34%, respectively. We also find new evidence of preference reversals and some evidence-though scarce-of transitivity violations in choices.

Conclusions: Our results show that there is a medium range of health states for which preferences are nonmonotonic. These findings support previous evidence on MET preferences and introduce a new "choice-ranking" preference reversal. It seems that the use of 2 tasks with a similar response scale may make preference reversals less substantial, although it remains important and systematic.

Highlights: Two procedures based on ordinal comparisons are used to elicit preferences: direct choices and rankings. Our study reports significant rates of nonmonotonic preferences (or maximum endurable time [MET]-type preferences) for different combinations of durations and EQ-5D health states.Analysis for separate health states shows that the mean rates of nonmonotonicity range from 22% (choices) to 34% (rankings), but within-subject analysis shows that nonmonotonicity is even higher, ranging from 49% (choices) to 71% (rankings). These violations challenge the validity of multiplicative QALY models.We find that the MET phenomenon may affect particularly those EQ-5D health states that are in the middle of the severity scale and not so much the extreme health states (i.e., very mild and very severe states).We find new evidence of preference reversals even using 2 procedures of a similar (ordinal) nature. Percentage rates of preference reversals range from 1.5% to 33%. We also find some (although scarce) evidence on violations of transitivity.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
测试健康偏好中的非单调性。
目的:本文的主要目的是检验寿命的单调性。先前的研究结果表明,对于健康状况不佳的状态,在达到某个阈值或最大可承受时间(MET)之前,较长的持续时间比较短的持续时间更可取,并且在该阈值之后,较短的时间比较长的时间更可取。方法:通过两个顺序任务:选择和排名来测试持续时间的单调性。便利样本(n = 90)是在一系列实验中招募的,在这些实验中,参与者必须按照健康事件的顺序进行排序,并在它们之间进行选择,两人一组。健康发作由7种EQ-5D-3L健康状态和5种持续时间的组合引起。单调性是通过比较每个健康状态下偏好单调的参与者的百分比和非单调偏好的参与者的比例来测试的。此外,为了检验偏好逆转的存在,我们分析了将偏好从排名转换为选择的人的比例。结果:在7个EQ-5D健康州中,单调性经常受到侵犯。个人偏好模式描述的违规行为从近49%的选择到71%的排名不等。各州进行的分析显示,选择和排名的平均违规率分别约为22%和34%。我们还发现了偏好逆转的新证据,以及一些在选择中违反及物性的证据。结论:我们的研究结果表明,有一个中等范围的健康状态的偏好是非单调的。这些发现支持了先前关于MET偏好的证据,并引入了一种新的“选择排名”偏好逆转。似乎使用两个反应量表相似的任务可能会使偏好逆转变得不那么实质,尽管这仍然是重要和系统的。亮点:基于顺序比较的两个程序用于引出偏好:直接选择和排名。我们的研究报告了不同持续时间和EQ-5D健康状态组合的非单调偏好(或最大可承受时间[MET]型偏好)的显著比率。对不同健康状态的分析显示,非单调性的平均发生率在22%(选择)到34%(排名)之间,但受试者内部分析显示,不单调性甚至更高,在49%(选择)和71%(排名)范围内。这些违规行为挑战了乘法QALY模型的有效性。我们发现,MET现象可能特别影响严重程度中等的EQ-5D健康状态,而不是极端健康状态(即非常轻微和非常严重的状态)。我们发现,即使使用两种类似(有序)性质的程序,偏好逆转的新证据也会出现。优惠逆转的百分比从1.5%到33%不等。我们还发现了一些(尽管很少)违反及物性的证据。
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 去求助
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.
期刊最新文献
Unclear Trajectory and Uncertain Benefit: Creating a Lexicon for Clinical Uncertainty in Patients with Critical or Advanced Illness Using a Delphi Consensus Process. Multi-indication Evidence Synthesis in Oncology Health Technology Assessment: Meta-analysis Methods and Their Application to a Case Study of Bevacizumab. Use of Adaptive Conjoint Analysis-Based Values Clarification in a Patient Decision Aid Is Not Associated with Better Perceived Values Clarity or Reduced Decisional Conflict but Enhances Values Congruence. A Sequential Calibration Approach to Address Challenges of Repeated Calibration of a COVID-19 Model. A Longitudinal Study of the Association of Awareness of Disease Incurability with Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1