• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

Explaining distortions in utility elicitation through the rank-dependent model for risky choices.

作者信息

Wakker P, Stiggelbout A

机构信息

Medical Decision Making Unit, University of Leiden, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Med Decis Making. 1995 Apr-Jun;15(2):180-6. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9501500212.

DOI:10.1177/0272989X9501500212
PMID:7783579
Abstract

The standard-gamble (SG) method has been accepted as the "gold standard" for the elicitation of utility when risk or uncertainty is involved in decisions, and thus for the measurement of utility in medical decisions. It is based on the assumptions of expected-utility theory. Unfortunately, there is now abundant evidence that expected utility is not empirically valid, and that the SG method overestimates risk aversion and the utilities of impaired health states. This paper shows how rank-dependent utility theory, a newly developed theory in decision science, can explain the main violations of expected utility. Thus it provides a means for correcting the SG method and for improving the assessments of quality-adjusted life years for medical decisions in which there is uncertainty about outcomes.

摘要

相似文献

1
Explaining distortions in utility elicitation through the rank-dependent model for risky choices.
Med Decis Making. 1995 Apr-Jun;15(2):180-6. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9501500212.
2
A framework for estimating health state utility values within a discrete choice experiment: modeling risky choices.离散选择实验中估计健康状态效用值的框架:对风险选择进行建模
Med Decis Making. 2015 Apr;35(3):341-50. doi: 10.1177/0272989X14554715. Epub 2014 Oct 27.
3
A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities.对时间权衡效用与标准博弈效用差异的一种新解释。
Health Econ. 2002 Jul;11(5):447-56. doi: 10.1002/hec.688.
4
Correcting biases in standard gamble and time tradeoff utilities.纠正标准博弈和时间权衡效用中的偏差。
Med Decis Making. 2004 Sep-Oct;24(5):511-7. doi: 10.1177/0272989X04268955.
5
The construction of standard gamble utilities.标准博弈效用的构建。
Health Econ. 2008 Jan;17(1):31-40. doi: 10.1002/hec.1235.
6
A new and more robust test of QALYs.一种新的、更可靠的质量调整生命年(QALY)测试。
J Health Econ. 2004 Mar;23(2):353-67. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2003.11.004.
7
Testing rank-dependent utility theory for health outcomes.
Health Econ. 2003 Oct;12(10):863-71. doi: 10.1002/hec.769.
8
The predictive validity of prospect theory versus expected utility in health utility measurement.前景理论与期望效用理论在健康效用测量中的预测有效性。
J Health Econ. 2009 Dec;28(6):1039-47. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2009.09.002. Epub 2009 Sep 20.
9
Preference-based measurement of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in children with chronic musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs).基于偏好的慢性肌肉骨骼疾病(MSKDs)患儿健康相关生活质量(HRQL)测量
Med Decis Making. 2003 Jul-Aug;23(4):314-22. doi: 10.1177/0272989X03256008.
10
Do Probability and Certainty Equivalent Techniques Lead to Inconsistent Results? Evidence from Gambles Involving Life-Years and Quality of Life.概率与确定性等价技术会导致不一致的结果吗?来自涉及生命年限和生活质量的赌博的证据。
Value Health. 2015 Jun;18(4):413-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.12.019. Epub 2015 Apr 15.

引用本文的文献

1
QALYs without bias? Nonparametric correction of time trade-off and standard gamble weights based on prospect theory.基于前景理论的时间权衡和标准博弈权重的无偏 QALYs 非参数校正。
Health Econ. 2019 Jul;28(7):843-854. doi: 10.1002/hec.3895.
2
Methods for measuring temporary health States for cost-utility analyses.用于成本效益分析的临时健康状态测量方法。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(9):713-23. doi: 10.2165/11317060-000000000-00000.
3
Comment on the value of vision by Knauer et al.评克瑙尔等人关于视觉的价值
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009 Jun;247(6):861. doi: 10.1007/s00417-009-1048-z. Epub 2009 Feb 17.
4
Cognitive impairment and preferences for current health.认知障碍与对当前健康状况的偏好
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009 Jan 9;7:1. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-7-1.
5
The value of vision.视力的价值。
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008 Apr;246(4):477-82. doi: 10.1007/s00417-007-0668-4. Epub 2007 Dec 11.
6
Measuring health preferences for use in cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses of interventions in children: theoretical and methodological considerations.衡量健康偏好以用于儿童干预措施的成本效用和成本效益分析:理论与方法学考量
Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(9):713-26. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200725090-00001.
7
Utility values among glaucoma patients: an impact on the quality of life.青光眼患者的效用值:对生活质量的影响。
Br J Ophthalmol. 2005 Oct;89(10):1241-4. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2005.068858.
8
A utility analysis correlation with visual acuity: methodologies and vision in the better and poorer eyes.与视力的效用分析相关性:较好眼和较差眼的方法及视力情况
Int Ophthalmol. 2001;24(3):123-7. doi: 10.1023/a:1021171000838.
9
Validity and responsiveness of the euroqol as a measure of health-related quality of life in people enrolled in an AIDS clinical trial.作为衡量参与艾滋病临床试验人群健康相关生活质量的工具,欧洲五维度健康量表的效度和反应度
Qual Life Res. 2002 May;11(3):273-82. doi: 10.1023/a:1015240103565.
10
Utility values associated with blindness in an adult population.与成年人群体失明相关的效用值。
Br J Ophthalmol. 2001 Mar;85(3):327-31. doi: 10.1136/bjo.85.3.327.