风险态度的性别差异。

L. Warshawsky-Livne, L. Novack, A. Rosen, S. Downs, J. Shkolnik-Inbar, J. Pliskin
{"title":"风险态度的性别差异。","authors":"L. Warshawsky-Livne, L. Novack, A. Rosen, S. Downs, J. Shkolnik-Inbar, J. Pliskin","doi":"10.1108/S0731-219920140000024003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE\nA rich literature has documented gender-based differences in health care utilization and outcomes. The role of risk attitude in explaining the variations is limited at best. This study examines gender differences in health utilities and risk attitudes.\n\n\nMETHODOLOGY\nData on 13 health states were collected from 629 students via questionnaires at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in 2005. From each respondent, we assessed utilities for a subset of health states, using Time Trade-Off and Standard Gamble. A risk attitude coefficient was calculated for each respondent as a function of their utilities for all outcomes assessed. The risk coefficient derived from a closed-form utility model for men was compared to that of women using the t-statistic.\n\n\nFINDINGS\nThere was a statistically significant difference in the risk attitudes of men and women. Men had a concave utility function, representing risk aversion, while women had a near linear utility function, suggesting that women are risk neutral. PRACTICAL/SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Differences in risk attitude may be an important contributor to gender-based disparities in health services utilization. More research is needed to assess its full impact on decision-making in health care.","PeriodicalId":79553,"journal":{"name":"Advances in health economics and health services research","volume":"24 1","pages":"123-40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/S0731-219920140000024003","citationCount":"24","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gender differences in risk attitudes.\",\"authors\":\"L. Warshawsky-Livne, L. Novack, A. Rosen, S. Downs, J. Shkolnik-Inbar, J. Pliskin\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/S0731-219920140000024003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PURPOSE\\nA rich literature has documented gender-based differences in health care utilization and outcomes. The role of risk attitude in explaining the variations is limited at best. This study examines gender differences in health utilities and risk attitudes.\\n\\n\\nMETHODOLOGY\\nData on 13 health states were collected from 629 students via questionnaires at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in 2005. From each respondent, we assessed utilities for a subset of health states, using Time Trade-Off and Standard Gamble. A risk attitude coefficient was calculated for each respondent as a function of their utilities for all outcomes assessed. The risk coefficient derived from a closed-form utility model for men was compared to that of women using the t-statistic.\\n\\n\\nFINDINGS\\nThere was a statistically significant difference in the risk attitudes of men and women. Men had a concave utility function, representing risk aversion, while women had a near linear utility function, suggesting that women are risk neutral. PRACTICAL/SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Differences in risk attitude may be an important contributor to gender-based disparities in health services utilization. More research is needed to assess its full impact on decision-making in health care.\",\"PeriodicalId\":79553,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in health economics and health services research\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"123-40\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-08-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/S0731-219920140000024003\",\"citationCount\":\"24\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in health economics and health services research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0731-219920140000024003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in health economics and health services research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0731-219920140000024003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24

摘要

目的:大量文献记录了医疗保健利用和结果的性别差异。风险态度在解释这些变化方面的作用充其量是有限的。本研究考察了卫生设施和风险态度方面的性别差异。方法2005年在内盖夫本-古里安大学通过问卷调查从629名学生中收集了13个健康州的数据。从每个受访者中,我们使用时间权衡和标准赌博来评估健康状态子集的效用。对每个被调查者的风险态度系数作为其效用对所有评估结果的函数进行了计算。使用t统计量对男性和女性的风险系数进行比较,风险系数来源于封闭式实用新型。研究结果男性和女性的风险态度有统计学上的显著差异。男性的效用函数为凹形,代表风险厌恶,而女性的效用函数为近线性,表明女性是风险中性的。实际/社会影响:风险态度的差异可能是造成保健服务利用方面基于性别差异的一个重要因素。需要更多的研究来评估其对卫生保健决策的全面影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Gender differences in risk attitudes.
PURPOSE A rich literature has documented gender-based differences in health care utilization and outcomes. The role of risk attitude in explaining the variations is limited at best. This study examines gender differences in health utilities and risk attitudes. METHODOLOGY Data on 13 health states were collected from 629 students via questionnaires at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in 2005. From each respondent, we assessed utilities for a subset of health states, using Time Trade-Off and Standard Gamble. A risk attitude coefficient was calculated for each respondent as a function of their utilities for all outcomes assessed. The risk coefficient derived from a closed-form utility model for men was compared to that of women using the t-statistic. FINDINGS There was a statistically significant difference in the risk attitudes of men and women. Men had a concave utility function, representing risk aversion, while women had a near linear utility function, suggesting that women are risk neutral. PRACTICAL/SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Differences in risk attitude may be an important contributor to gender-based disparities in health services utilization. More research is needed to assess its full impact on decision-making in health care.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Effect of Education on Health Behavior after Screening for Colorectal Cancer Educational Heterogeneity in the Association between Smoking Cessation and Health Information Birth Spacing and Educational Outcomes Unemployment Insurance and Physical Activity Causal Effects of Maternal Schooling on Child Immunization in India
×
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