ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2025
Loss aversion in EQ-5D-Y-3L: does it explain differences in willingness to trade-off life years in adults and children?
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Child- versus adult-perspective composite time trade-off valuations for the EQ-5D-Y-3L: evidence from the Hungarian valuation study.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
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEarlier work has shown that adults valuing health for 10-year-old children (i.e., in a child perspective) are more reluctant to trade-off life duration than for themselves, generating higher utilities in composite time trade-off (cTTO). The main motivation of this study is to explore if this reluctance can be explained through loss aversion, i.e., losses of life duration weighing more than gains of the same size.
methods100 UK adults completed cTTO tasks for six EQ-5D-Y-3L states and tasks measuring loss aversion. Both sets of tasks were completed from the child perspective and for the respondent themselves, enabling perspective-dependent correction for loss aversion.
resultsA slight majority of participants was explicitly more loss averse for children than for themselves. Health state utilities were higher in the child perspective both before and after correction for loss aversion. Differences between utilities elicited in both perspectives and the variance of cTTO utilities increased considerably after correction. DISCUSSION: The results suggest that loss aversion does not explain differences in willingness to trade-off life duration between perspectives. Hence, it remains unclear if correction for loss aversion should be recommended when using EQ-5D-Y-3L utilities in practice.
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.