Broekharst Damien S E, Bloem Sjaak, Groenland Edward A G, Jeurissen Patrick P T, van Agthoven Michel
Center for Marketing & Supply Chain Management, Nyenrode Business University, Breukelen, 3621 BG, the Netherlands.
IQ Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, 6525 GA, the Netherlands.
Sci Rep. 2025 Aug 19;15(1):30293. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-15916-7.
Expected utility is increasingly deployed as a predictor of health behaviour within the broader domain of health economics and health sciences in general. However, research shows that this concept only explains limited variance in health behaviour. This limited explained variance is often attributed to the questionable theoretical axioms underlying the concept. Due to these limitations it was hypothesised that the concept of utility should not be conceptualized in terms of preferences for future health states (expected utility), but as realistic approximations of future health states (projected utility). Therefore, this study examines whether deployment of projected utility separately or in combination with expected utility enhances predictions of health behaviour as compared to expected utility. Online questionnaires were disseminated among a nationally representative panel of Dutch citizens (N = 2,550). The questionnaire encompassed items capturing demographic characteristics alongside instruments measuring expected utility, projected utility and health behaviour. Data analysis entailed descriptive, reliability, validity and model statistics. The results suggest that projected utility has a larger significant direct effect on and explains more variance in health behaviour than expected utility. The results subsequently indicate that expected utility and projected utility combined have a larger significant direct effect on and explain more variance in health behaviour than each type of utility separately. Health economists, policy makers and other public health practitioners are well advised to at least consider the separate or even combined deployment of projected utility in health economics in order to enhance predictions of health behaviour.
在更广泛的健康经济学和一般健康科学领域,预期效用越来越多地被用作健康行为的预测指标。然而,研究表明,这一概念仅能解释健康行为中有限的方差。这种有限的解释方差通常归因于该概念背后存在问题的理论公理。由于这些局限性,有人提出效用概念不应根据对未来健康状态的偏好(预期效用)来概念化,而应作为未来健康状态的现实近似值(预测效用)。因此,本研究考察了与预期效用相比,单独使用预测效用或与预期效用结合使用是否能增强对健康行为的预测。在线问卷在一个具有全国代表性的荷兰公民样本(N = 2550)中进行了发放。问卷包括收集人口统计学特征的项目,以及测量预期效用、预测效用和健康行为的工具。数据分析包括描述性、可靠性、有效性和模型统计。结果表明,预测效用对健康行为的直接影响更大且具有统计学意义,并且比预期效用能解释更多的方差。随后的结果表明,预期效用和预测效用相结合对健康行为的直接影响更大且具有统计学意义,并且比单独使用每种效用能解释更多的方差。建议健康经济学家、政策制定者和其他公共卫生从业者至少考虑在健康经济学中单独或甚至结合使用预测效用,以增强对健康行为的预测。