ArticleJournal of market access & health policy2025
Deploying Experienced Utility in Health Economic Evaluation: A Quantitative Study.
Article in Journal of market access & health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExpected utility has been deployed in order to predict health behaviour in health economic evaluation. However, only limited variance in health behaviour is explained by this construct. This limited explained variance is often attributed to the dubious foundational postulates underlying the construct (e.g., absolute rationality, complete information, fixed preferences). Due to these limitations it has been hypothesized that substituting or complementing expected utility with experienced utility may enhance predictions of health behaviour. As this hypothesis has not yet been subjected to empirical scrutiny, this study examines if deployment of experienced utility or expected utility and experienced utility combined enhances predictions of health behaviour relative to expected utility separately.
methodsOnline questionnaires were distributed across a panel of Dutch citizens (N = 2550). The questionnaire includes items and scales on sample characteristics, expected utility, experienced utility and health behaviour. Data analysis was conducted by employing descriptive, reliability, validity and model statistics.
resultsExperienced utility has a significant direct effect on health behaviour that is stronger than expected utility. Experienced utility also explains more variance in health behaviour than expected utility. Expected utility and experienced utility combined have a significant direct and indirect effect on health behaviour that is stronger than each type of utility separately. Expected utility and experienced utility combined also explain more variance in health behaviour than each type of utility separately.
conclusionsDeploying experienced utility separately or in combination with expected utility in health economic evaluation seems pertinent as it has considerable impact on health behaviour and may provide health economists with an even sturdier foundation for conducting health economic evaluation.
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.