Improving scope sensitivity in contingent valuation: Joint and separate evaluation of health states

Prades, José Luis Pinto; Robles‐Zurita, José Antonio; Sánchez-Martínez, Fernando Ignacio; Abellán-Perpiñán, José-María; Martínez-Peréz, Jorge

doi:10.1002/hec.3508

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Evaluability is also central whenever the public is asked to value different health states or different environmental outcomes (e.g., as an input into cost-effectiveness analyses, risk management decisions, or environmental damage evaluations). Evaluations of different levels of disability or health states, for example, depend on whether the questions are asked in separate or joint evaluation and on what comparison standards are provided, although the exact mechanism of the effect remains in dispute (Lacey, Loewenstein, & Ubel, 2011; Pinto-Prades, Robles-Zurita, Sánchez-Martínez, Abellán-Perpiñán, & Martínez-Pérez, 2017).…”

Section: Evaluability Issues In Health and Science Data Communicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Helping People Know Whether Measurements Have Good or Bad Implications: Increasing the Evaluability of Health and Science Data Communications

Zikmund‐Fisher

2019

Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients, policy makers, and the public have access to many types of health and scientific data relevant to various individual and societal decisions. Yet, these audiences often struggle with the meaning and the potential usefulness of those data, so they may choose not to engage with the data at all. Scientific and health data are generally difficult to interpret, yet presentations often implicitly assume that the recipient has the necessary contextual knowledge to identify the data's meaning. To address this problem, designers of data communications should go beyond considering audience characteristics (e.g., numeracy) and focus more on increasing information evaluability (a concept from the judgment and decision-making literatures). The challenge is understanding which data characteristics guide people's ability to extract meaning from data in a given situation. Prioritizing use-relevant contextual information (e.g., by defining action thresholds, comparison standards, meaningful categories, and/ or significant differences) is the single best thing experts can do to improve data communication effectiveness. Doing so increases the chances that the patient, public, or policy maker audience does not just know what their numbers are but also what they mean.

show abstract

Section: Evaluability Issues In Health and Science Data Communicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Helping People Know Whether Measurements Have Good or Bad Implications: Increasing the Evaluability of Health and Science Data Communications

Zikmund‐Fisher

2019

Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In broad framing, decision makers consider two or more risky options simultaneously, whereas narrow framing requires agents to evaluate risky options in isolation. A number of studies analyzed narrow versus broad framing behavior in the context of taking medicines (Gyrd-Hansen et al, 2011), hypothetical disaster prevention programs (Hsee et al, 2013), traffic injuries (Pinto-Prades et al, 2017), stock investment choices (Kumar & Lim, 2008), and long-term care insurance (Gottlieb & Mitchell, 2020). Additionally, Zheng (2020) analyzes optimal insurance policy for consumers with narrow framing.…”

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Framing and insurance choices

Burkovskaya

Teperski

Atalay

2021

J of Risk & Insurance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The presentation of objective information should not affect a rational decision-maker; however, in practice, it often does. This paper studies the effect of the framing of contingencies on insurance choices. In several experiments, we presented participants with differently framed insurance tasks, where they had to choose deductibles against two different types of losses.The treatment group received a broad description of the risky situation and was asked to decide on the deductibles jointly, whereas the control group received a narrow description of the same task and was asked to decide on the deductibles separately. We discovered that the distribution of the insurance premium paid was identical in all groups, but the actual choices of the insurance plans were significantly diverse: On average, the treatment group preferred more similar deductibles than did the control group. These results indicate the importance of framing in insurance decision-making.

show abstract

“…14,15 Contingent valuation (CV) is a survey-based nonmarket valuation technique, based on stated preferences, which has been extensively used to estimate the monetary value of health care services and public health programs. [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] The CV method asks people to state their willingness to pay (WTP) to obtain a good or service not owned by respondents or their willingness to accept (WTA) to give up a good or service owned by respondents. 26 Therefore, WTA is the preferred framework to estimate the monetary value of a hypothetical program that aims at persuading individuals to use more of their disposable time to increase their physical activity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

One Size Does Not Fit All: Financial Incentives Needed to Change Physical Exercise Levels for Different Groups

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study estimated the distribution of willingness to accept (WTA) for a physical activity behavior change intervention entailing the completion of 10,000 steps/day to shed light on which levels of incentives trigger a change in behavior for different proportions of the population and for more at-risk subgroups. An online contingent valuation (CV) survey was administered to 1,130 respondents in the Basque Autonomous Community, Spain. The survey queried respondents about their physical activity levels and intention to engage in physical activity before presenting the WTA questions. Nonparametric WTA values were estimated for the whole sample and for subsamples of active, inactive, and overweight and obese people. One-quarter of respondents would engage with the hypothetical program even without payment, but if a monetary incentive was offered them, they would take it. The median WTA for committing to complete 10,000 steps/day is €0.23 for the full sample, €0.21 for active, €0.25 for inactive, and €0.23 for overweight and obese people. The WTA at 75th percentile is €4 for the full sample, €1.70 for active, €10.80 for inactive, and €5 for overweight and obese respondents. WTA is positively affected by a person’s lack of disposable time to increase their physical activity and, for inactive people, by their poor intention to become physically active.

show abstract

Improving scope sensitivity in contingent valuation: Joint and separate evaluation of health states

Cited by 5 publications

References 39 publications

Helping People Know Whether Measurements Have Good or Bad Implications: Increasing the Evaluability of Health and Science Data Communications

Helping People Know Whether Measurements Have Good or Bad Implications: Increasing the Evaluability of Health and Science Data Communications

Framing and insurance choices

One Size Does Not Fit All: Financial Incentives Needed to Change Physical Exercise Levels for Different Groups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About