Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A
Department of Economics, University of Newcastle, Newcastle-Upon Tyne, UK.
J Health Econ. 1996 Apr;15(2):209-31. doi: 10.1016/0167-6296(95)00038-0.
In eliciting health state valuations, two widely used methods are the standard gamble (SG) and the time trade off (TTO). Both methods make assumptions about individual preferences that are too restrictive to allow them to act as perfect proxies for utility. Therefore, a choice between them might instead be made on empirical grounds. This paper reports on a study which compared a "props" (using specifically-designed boards) and a "no props" (using self-completion booklets) variant of each method. The results suggested that both non props variants might be susceptable to framing effects and that TTP props outperformed SG props.
在获取健康状态估值时,两种广泛使用的方法是标准博弈法(SG)和时间权衡法(TTO)。这两种方法对个体偏好所做的假设限制过严,以至于无法作为效用的完美替代指标。因此,或许应基于实证依据在它们之间做出选择。本文报告了一项研究,该研究比较了每种方法的“有道具”(使用专门设计的板子)和“无道具”(使用自填式小册子)两种变体。结果表明,两种无道具变体可能都容易受到框架效应的影响,并且时间权衡法的有道具形式优于标准博弈法的有道具形式。