Prospect theory in the valuation of health

References

• Starmer C. Developments in non-expected utility theory: the hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. J. Econ. Lit. 38, 332–382 (2000).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica47, 263–292 (1979).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H, Wakker P, Johannesson M. Characterizing QALYs by risk neutrality. J. Risk Uncertain. 15, 107–114 (1997).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quiggan J. ‘A theory of anticipated utility’. J. Econ. Behav. Organ3, 323–343 (1982).
   Google Scholar
• Varian, HR. Microeconomics Analysis, 3rd edition. WW Norton & Co., Inc., NY, USA (1992).
   Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. The validity of QALYs: an experimental test of constant proportional tradeoff and utility independence. Med. Decis. Making17, 21–32 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miyamoto JM, Eraker SA. Parameter estimates for a QALY utility model. Med. Decis. Making5, 191–213 (1985).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stiggelbout AM, Kiebert GM, Kievit J et al. Utility assessment in cancer patients: adjustment of time tradeoff scores for the utility of life years and comparison with standard gamble scores. Med. Decis. Making14, 82–90 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhoef LC, de Haan AF, van Daal WA. Risk attitude in gambles with years of life: empirical support for prospect theory. Med. Decis. Making 14, 194–200 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell, Weinstein MC. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press, NY, USA (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Treadwell JR, Lenert LA. Health values and prospect theory. Med. Decis. Making19, 344–352 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan P, Stalmeier P. The validity of time trade-off values in calculating QALYs: constant proportional time trade-off versus the proportional heuristic. J. Health Econ. 22, 445–458 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Osch SM, Wakker PP, van den Hout WB, Stiggelbout AM. Correcting biases in standard gamble and time tradeoff utilities. Med. Decis. Making 24, 511–517 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science211, 453–458 (1981).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Slovic P, Kahneman D. The causes of preference reversal. Am. Econ. Rev. 80, 204–217 (1990).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bless H, Betsch T, Franzen A. Framing the framing effect: the impact of context cues on solutions to the ‘asian disease’ problem. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 28, 287–291 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Apanovitch AM, McCarthy D, Salovey P. Using message framing to motivate HIV testing among low-income, ethnic minority women. Health Psychol. 22, 60–67 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edgell SE, McCabe SJ, Breidenbach WC, Neace WP, LaJoie AS, Abell TD. Different reference frames can lead to different hand transplantation decisions by patients and physicians. J. Hand Surg.26, 196–200 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Detweiler JB, Bedell BT, Salovey P, Pronin E, Rothman AJ. Message framing and sunscreen use: gain-framed messages motivate beach-goers. Health Psychol. 18, 189–196 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representative of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertain. 5, 297–323 (1992).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez R, Wu G. On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognit. Psychol. 38, 129–166 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H, Pinto JL. A parameter-free elicitation of the probability weighting function in medical decision analysis. Manage. Sci. 46, 1485–1496 (2000).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdellaoui M. Parameter-free elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions. Manage. Sci. 46, 1497–1512 (2000).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliver A. The internal consistency of the standard gamble: tests after adjusting for prospect theory. J. Health Econ. 22, 659–674 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wu G, Gonzalez R. Curvature of the probability weighting function. Manage. Sci. 42, 1676–1690 (1996).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camerer C, Ho T. Violations of the betweenness axiom and nonlinearity in probability. J. Risk Uncertain. 8, 167–196 (1994).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H, van Rijn J, Johannesson M. Probability weighting and utility curvature in QALY based decision making. J. Math. Psychol. 43, 238–260 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H. Probability weighting in choice under risk: an empirical test. J. Risk Uncertain. 23, 185–198 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• The EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy16, 199–208 (1990).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doctor JN, Bleichrodt H, Miyamoto J, Temkin NR, Dikmen S. A new and more robust test of QALYs. J. Health Econ. 23, 353–367 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Robinson A, Loomes G, Jones-Lee M. Visual analog scales, standard gambles, and relative risk aversion. Med. Decis. Making21, 17–27 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Winter L, Lawton MP, Ruckdeschel K. Preferences for prolonging life: a prospect theory approach. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 56, 155–170 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stalmeier PF, Bezembinder TG. The discrepancy between risky and riskless utilities: a matter of framing? Med. Decis. Making19, 435–447 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nease RF. Do violations of the axioms of expected utility theory threaten decision analysis? Med. Decis. Making16, 399–403 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar