Effect of assessment method on the discrepancy between judgments of health disorders people have and do not have: A Web study

被引:42
作者
Baron, J
Asch, DA
Fagerlin, A
Jepson, C
Loewenstein, G
Riis, J
Stineman, MG
Ubel, PA
机构
[1] Univ Penn, Dept Psychol, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[2] Univ Penn, Leonard Davis Inst Hlth Econ, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[3] Univ Penn, Sch Med, Div Gen Internal Med, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[4] Univ Penn, Sch Med, Dept Rehabil Med, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[5] Philadelphia Vet Affairs Med Ctr, Ctr Hlth Equ Res & Promot, Philadelphia, PA USA
[6] Vet Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare Syst, Vet Adm Hlth Serv Res & Dev Ctr Excellence, Ann Arbor, MI USA
[7] Univ Michigan, Div Gen Internal Med, Program Improving Hlth Care Decis, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
[8] Univ Michigan, Dept Psychol, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
[9] Carnegie Mellon Univ, Dept Social & Decis Sci, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
关键词
adaptation; utility assessment; response shift; focusing illusion;
D O I
10.1177/0272989X03257277
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Three experiments on the World Wide Web asked subjects to rate the severity of common health disorders such as acne or arthritis. People who had a disorder ("Haves") tended to rate it as less severe than people who did not have it ("Not-haves"). Two explanations of this Have versus Not-have discrepancy were rejected. By one account, people change their reference point when they rate a disorder that they have. More precise reference points would, on this account, reduce the discrepancy, but, if anything, the discrepancy was larger. By another account, people who do not have the disorder focus on attributes that are most affected by it, and the discrepancy should decrease when people make ratings on several attributes. Again, if anything, the discrepancy increased when ratings were on separate attributes (combined by a weighted average). The discrepancy varied in size and direction across disorders. Subjects also thought that they would be less affected than others.
引用
收藏
页码:422 / 434
页数:13
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]   Do retrospective and prospective quality of life assessments differ for pancreas-kidney transplant recipients? [J].
Adang, EMM ;
Kootstra, G ;
Engel, GL ;
van Hooff, JP ;
Merckelbach, HLGJ .
TRANSPLANT INTERNATIONAL, 1998, 11 (01) :11-15
[2]   Proxy reliability: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures for people with disability [J].
Andresen, EM ;
Vahle, VJ ;
Lollar, D .
QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2001, 10 (07) :609-619
[3]   Norm-endorsement utilitarianism and the nature of utility [J].
Baron, J .
ECONOMICS AND PHILOSOPHY, 1996, 12 (02) :165-182
[4]   Response shift in the perception of health for utility evaluation:: an explorative investigation [J].
Bernhard, J ;
Lowy, A ;
Maibach, R ;
Hürny, C .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2001, 37 (14) :1729-1735
[5]   Quality of life as subjective experience:: Reframing of perception in patients with colon cancer undergoing radical resection with or without adjuvant chemotherapy [J].
Bernhard, J ;
Hürny, C ;
Maibach, R ;
Herrmann, R ;
Laffer, U .
ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, 1999, 10 (07) :775-782
[6]   WHOSE UTILITIES FOR DECISION-ANALYSIS [J].
BOYD, NF ;
SUTHERLAND, HJ ;
HEASMAN, KZ ;
TRITCHLER, DL ;
CUMMINGS, BJ .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1990, 10 (01) :58-67
[7]   LOTTERY WINNERS AND ACCIDENT VICTIMS - IS HAPPINESS RELATIVE [J].
BRICKMAN, P ;
COATES, D ;
JANOFFBULMAN, R .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1978, 36 (08) :917-927
[8]  
BRICKMAN P, 1971, ADAPTATION LEVEL THE
[9]   Prostate cancer patients' utilities for health states: How it looks depends on where you stand [J].
Chapman, GB ;
Elstein, AS ;
Kuzel, TM ;
Sharifi, R ;
Nadler, RB ;
Andrews, A ;
Bennett, CL .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1998, 18 (03) :278-286
[10]  
De Wit GA, 2000, HEALTH ECON, V9, P109, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(200003)9:2<109::AID-HEC503>3.0.CO