SynthesisInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2025
Whether temporal discounting is domain-specific between health outcomes and money: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Domain-specific discounting of health and money: implications for health technology assessment.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTemporal discounting, the preference for immediate over delayed rewards, affects decision-making in domains like health and finance. Understanding the differences in how people discount health outcomes compared to monetary rewards is crucial to shaping health policy and technology assessments.
aimThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare temporal discounting parameters between health outcomes and monetary rewards and evaluate their overall relationship.
methodStudies were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to December 2023. Standardized mean differences (SMD) assessed discounting differences between statistical indicators, and correlation coefficients were transformed into Fisher's Z scores. Subgroup analyses based on population, tradability, magnitude, sign, and experimental process explored potential heterogeneity.
resultsA total of 32 studies were included: 29 studies (47 pairs of health and money) for the comparative meta-analysis and 19 studies (32 pairs) for the correlation meta-analysis. No significant differences were found between health and money discounting, although the individuals were more patient with the health outcomes and more impulsive with the money. In the sign effect subgroup, health discounting for delayed losses was lower than for monetary losses (SMD: - 0.293; 95% CI: - 0.458, - 0.129). The pooled correlation coefficient (r) for all studies was 0.333 (95% CI: 0.283-0.383), indicating a moderate association. In subgroup analysis, when the indicator was the discount rate, the pooled r value for 16 studies was 0.278 (95% CI: 0.231, 0.325).
conclusionAlthough no significant statistical differences were found between health and money discounting, a moderate correlation was observed, supporting consistent discount rate settings for health technology assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39718761What 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.