ArticleHealth economics2022
Correcting for discounting and loss aversion in composite time trade-off.
Article in Health economics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is episodic future thinking effective in mitigating the influence of time preference in time trade-off?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025Trial
- Eliciting discounting model and direction at the individual level with time trade-off follow-up questions.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- EQ-5D(-Y) Valuation from Adult and Child Perspectives: Where Does the Empirical Evidence Leave Us and How Should We Proceed?PharmacoEconomics · 2026Review
- Loss aversion in EQ-5D-Y-3L: does it explain differences in willingness to trade-off life years in adults and children?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025Article
- Comparing heuristic valuation processes between health state valuation from child and adult perspectives.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024Article
- Scale and rate heterogeneity in the EQ-5D-5L valuation.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2024Article
- The effect of duration and time preference on the gap between adult and child health state valuations in time trade-off.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024Article
- Correction to: Time and lexicographic preferences in the valuation of EQ-5D-Y with time trade-off methodology.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022Article
- Correcting for discounting and loss aversion in composite time trade-off.Health economics · 2022Article
- Implications of Diminishing Lifespan Marginal Utility for Valuing Equity in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Time trade-off utilities have been suggested to be biased upwards. This bias is a result of the method being applied assuming linear utility of life duration, which is violated when individuals discount future life years or are loss averse for health. Applying a "corrective approach", that is, measuring individuals' discount function and loss aversion and correcting time trade-off utilities for these individual characteristics, may reduce this bias in utilities. Earlier work has developed this approach for time trade-off in a student sample. In this study, the corrective approach was extended to composite time trade-off (cTTO) methodology, which enabled correcting utilities for health states worse than dead. In digital interviews a sample of 150 members of the general public completed cTTO tasks for six health states, and afterward they completed measurements of loss aversion and discounting. cTTO utilities were corrected using these measurements under multiple specifications. Respondents were also asked to reflect on and adjust their cTTO utilities directly. Our results show considerable loss aversion and both positive and negative discounting were prevalent. As predicted, correction generally resulted in lower utilities. This was in accordance with the direction of adjustments made by respondents themselves.
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.