ArticleJournal of risk and uncertainty2018
Present bias and health.
Article in Journal of risk and uncertainty, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed.
- A randomized controlled trial on the effect of administrative burden and information costs on social inequalities in early childcare access in France.Nature human behaviour · 2026Trial
- Investigating Rewards and Deposit Contract Financial Incentives for Physical Activity Behavior Change Using a Smartphone App: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Trial
- The Effect of a Future-Self Avatar Mobile Health Intervention (FutureMe) on Physical Activity and Food Purchases: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Trial
- Expected breathlessness is overestimated compared to experienced: a mobile ecological momentary assessment study.ERJ open research · 2026Article
- Leveraging the Electronic Health Record to Identify and Manage Resistant Hypertension.Current hypertension reports · 2026Review
- Understanding Underinvestment in Prevention: A Behavioral Perspective.Journal of prevention (2022) · 2026Article
- Sequential choice vs colonoscopy outreach for colorectal cancer screening: Design and rationale of a pragmatic randomized clinical trial.Contemporary clinical trials · 2026Article
- Supply and demand barriers to PHC maternal care services uptake: qualitative and behavioural insights from Gombe State, Nigeria.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- How time and risk preferences affect glucose control in type 2 diabetes patients.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The hidden cost of sophistication: economic complexity and obesity.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025Article
- Pharmacy Subscription Program and Medication Refills, Days' Supply, and Out-of-Pocket Costs.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Time Matters: Time Perspectives Predict Intertemporal Prosocial Preferences.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Lottery incentives for smoking cessation at the workplace: design and protocol of the smoke-free lottery - a cluster randomized trial.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Giving more detailed information about health insurance encourages consumers to choose compromise options.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Time and risk preferences and the perceived effectiveness of incentives to comply with diabetic retinopathy screening among older adults with type 2 diabetes.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Lay perceptions of diabetes mellitus and prevention costs and benefits among adults undiagnosed with the condition in Singapore: a qualitative study.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Diabetes And The Fragmented State Of US Health Care And Policy.Health affairs (Project Hope) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study uses a dynamic discrete choice model to examine the degree of present bias and naivete about present bias in individuals' health care decisions. Clinical guidelines exist for several common chronic diseases. Although the empirical evidence for some guidelines is strong, many individuals with these diseases do not follow the guidelines. Using persons with diabetes as a case study, we find evidence of substantial present bias and naivete. Counterfactual simulations indicate the importance of present bias and naivete in explaining low adherence rates to health care guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.