ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2026
Eliciting discounting model and direction at the individual level with time trade-off follow-up questions.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTime preference is increasingly considered in health state valuation. As its inclusion impacts the produced value sets, it is important to account for it using the correct specification. Various discounting functions have been used, and both directions of time preference have been identified. I aimed to extend the composite time-trade off task (composite TTO, cTTO) by follow-up questions (TTOFUs) to identify the discounting function and direction for individual respondents.
methodsRespondents completed cTTO tasks for 6 EQ-5D-5L health states. If utility exceeded 0.1, three TTOFUs (Q1-Q3) were posed. Each TTOFU modified the indifference-yielding alternative by halving durations (Q1) or adding a 5-year lead-time in full health (Q2) or a 5-year lag-time in the valued state (Q3). As shown in the paper, the pattern of Q1-Q3 answers unambiguously discerns the discounting function (exponential, power, or hyperbolic) and direction.
resultsData from 148 respondents, 16 health states, and 577 respondent-state pairs were analysed. Only 20.4% of pairs yielded theoretically-plausible patterns, and among those 60% imply no time preference. For Q2 and Q3, responses mostly implied negative ([Formula: see text]) and positive ([Formula: see text]) time preference, respectively. Majority-rule pooling within respondents produced a pattern not matching the considered discounting models but that can arise when quality-of-life and longevity are combined additively, not multiplicatively as in the quality-adjusted life years (QALY) model.
conclusionsStandard discounting models poorly fit observed choices in TTO-like questions. The discounting parameters measured in other studies may be driven by other phenomena, including departures from the QALY model. Hence, careful interpretation of estimated parameters is warranted, and future studies are recommended.
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.