Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34297215›Full record

ArticleHealth economics review2021

Decisions of persons, the pharmaceutical industry, and donors in disease contraction and recovery assuming virus mutation.

Kjell Hausken, Mthuli Ncube

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health economics review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Kjell HauskenFaculty of Science and Technology, University of Stavanger, 4036, Stavanger, Norway. kjell.hausken@uis.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7319-3876
Mthuli NcubeSaid Business School, University of Oxford, Park End Street, OX1 1HP, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe article develops an eight-period game between N persons and a pharmaceutical company. The choices of a donor and Nature are parametric.

methodsPersons choose between safe and risky behavior, and whether or not to buy drugs. The pharmaceutical company chooses whether or not to develop drugs. The donor chooses parametrically whether to subsidize drug purchases and drug developments. Nature chooses disease contraction, recovery, death, and virus mutation. The game is solved with backward induction.

resultsThe conditions are specified for each of seven outcomes ranging from safe behavior to risky behavior and buying no or one or both drugs. The seven outcomes distribute themselves across three outcomes for the pharmaceutical company, which are to develop no drugs, develop one drug, and develop two drugs if the virus mutates. For these three outcomes the donor's expected utility is specified.

conclusionHIV/AIDS data is used to present a procedure for parameter estimation. The players' strategic choices are exemplified. The article shows how strategic interaction between persons and a pharmaceutical company, with parametric choices of a donor and Nature, impact whether persons choose risky or safe behavior, whether a pharmaceutical company develops no drugs or one drug, or two drugs if a virus mutates, and the impact of subsidies by a donor.

Indexed as

DeathDisease contractionDonorsDrug developmentGame theoryHealthPatientsPharmaceutical industryRecoverySafe versus risky behaviorSubsidiesVirus mutation

Identifiers

PMID34297215
PMCPMC8298955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.