Shiell A, Seymour J, Hawe P, Cameron S
Social and Public Health Economics Research (SPHERe) Group, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Sydney, Australia.
Health Econ. 2000 Jan;9(1):47-55. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(200001)9:1<47::aid-hec485>3.0.co;2-l.
Most applied work in health economics accepts, if only implicitly, the axiom of completeness. Preferences over health states or health services are assumed to be well formed. They are effectively 'data' waiting to be collected. An alternative perspective suggests that values are initially incomplete and are constructed rather than just revealed in the process of answering choice-related questions such as willingness to pay or standard gambles. What might appear as measurement error may, therefore, be a more deliberate process of reflection and deliberation. This paper reports on a study that assessed the completeness of health preferences. The results show a mixed pattern. For most of the sample, values were stable over repeat administration, suggesting completeness. However, one-third of participants deliberately changed their answers and suggested that the interview process had forced them to think about their values more deeply. While it is premature to draw conclusions from this small sample, the suggestion is that completeness cannot be taken for granted.
大多数健康经济学领域的应用研究即便只是隐含地，也接受完备性公理。人们假定对健康状态或健康服务的偏好是完备的。它们实际上是有待收集的“数据”。另一种观点认为，价值观最初是不完备的，是构建而成的，而非仅仅在回答诸如支付意愿或标准博弈等与选择相关问题的过程中被揭示出来。因此，看似测量误差的情况可能是一个更经过深思熟虑的反思和权衡过程。本文报告了一项评估健康偏好完备性的研究。结果呈现出一种混合模式。对于大多数样本而言，在重复进行调查时价值观是稳定的，这表明偏好具有完备性。然而，三分之一的参与者刻意改变了他们的答案，并表示访谈过程促使他们更深入地思考自己的价值观。虽然从这个小样本得出结论还为时过早，但这表明完备性不能被视为理所当然。
