Choice-Matching Preference Reversals in Health Outcome Assessments

Background. Health outcome utility assessments generally assume procedural invariance. Preference reversals violating procedural invariance occur in economic scenarios when the assessment process shifts from a choiceto a fill-in-the-blanktask. Purpose. To determine if similar reversals occur in utility assessments. Methods. One hundred thirty-six volunteer subjects completed 6 preference assessments of 4 personal health scenarios. Patients responded to otherwise identical tasks using either choice or fill-in-the-blank processes in a randomized crossover design. The authors determined the percentage of subjects preferring, or inferred to prefer, a given choice. Results. Preference reversals occurred in all assessment scenarios. Conclusions. These preference reversals are a potential source of confusion for utility assessment and informed consent. They could be manipulated to achieve ends other than the best interest of patients. Anchoring or the prominence hypothesis may explain these findings.

[1]  Yoav Ganzach,et al.  Preference Reversals in Equal‐probability Gambles: A Case for Anchoring and Adjustment , 1996 .

[2]  T. Wallsten,et al.  Effects of probability mode on preference reversal. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[3]  P. Stalmeier,et al.  Assessment of the Time-tradeoff Val ues for Prophylactic Mastectomy of Women with a Suspected Genetic Predisposition to Breast Cancer , 1998, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[4]  W Sumner,et al.  U-titer: a utility assessment tool. , 1991, Proceedings. Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care.

[5]  A. Tversky,et al.  Contingent weighting in judgment and choice , 1988 .

[6]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Response-induced reversals of preference in gambling: An extended replication in las vegas , 1973 .

[7]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Cognitive processes in preference reversals , 1989 .

[8]  X. T. Wang Domain-specific rationality in human choices: violations of utility axioms and social contexts , 1996, Cognition.

[9]  P. Slovic The Construction of Preference , 1995 .

[10]  M. Selart,et al.  Reasoning about Outcome Probabilities and Values in Preference Reversals , 1999 .

[11]  Peter Bohm,et al.  Time Preference and Preference Reversal among Experienced Subjects: The Effects of Real Payments , 1994 .

[12]  L. Lenert,et al.  The Effect of Search Procedures on Utility Elicitations , 1998, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[13]  L. Cosmides,et al.  Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. , 1992 .

[14]  Marcus Selart,et al.  Structure Compatibility and Restructuring in Judgment and Choice , 1996 .

[15]  John R. Anderson Is human cognition adaptive? , 1991, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[16]  T. Rector,et al.  Use of the Living With Heart Failure questionnaire to ascertain patients' perspectives on improvement in quality of life versus risk of drug-induced death. , 1995, Journal of cardiac failure.

[17]  M. Weinstein,et al.  Estimating General-population Utilities Using One Binary-gamble Question per Respondent , 1998, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[18]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Options: A Review and Theoretical Analysis , 1999 .

[19]  G. W. Fischer,et al.  Strategy compatibility, scale compatibility, and the prominence effect. , 1993 .

[20]  T. Bezembinder,et al.  Preference reversals: Violations of unidimensional procedure invariance , 1997 .