The prominence effect in health-care priority setting
People often choose the option that is better on the most subjectively prominent attribute --- the prominence effect. We studied the effect of prominence in health care priority setting and hypothesized that values related to health would trump values related to costs in treatment choices, even whe...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2022-11-01
|
| Series: | Judgment and Decision Making |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://journal.sjdm.org/22/220926/jdm220926.pdf |
| _version_ | 1827833527388864512 |
|---|---|
| author | Emil Persson Arvid Erlandsson Paul Slovic Daniel Västfjäll Gustav Tinghög |
| author_facet | Emil Persson Arvid Erlandsson Paul Slovic Daniel Västfjäll Gustav Tinghög |
| author_sort | Emil Persson |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | People often choose
the option that is better on the most subjectively prominent attribute --- the
prominence effect. We studied the effect of prominence in health care priority
setting and hypothesized that values related to health would trump values
related to costs in treatment choices, even when individuals themselves
evaluated different treatment options as equally good. We conducted
pre-registered experiments with a diverse Swedish sample and a sample of
international experts on priority setting in health care (n = 1348).
Participants, acting in the role of policy makers, revealed their valuation for
different medical treatments in hypothetical scenarios. Participants were
systematically inconsistent between preferences expressed through evaluation in
a matching task and preferences expressed through choice. In line with our
hypothesis, a large proportion of participants (General population: 92%,
Experts 84% of all choices) chose treatment options that were better on the
health dimension (lower health risk) despite having previously expressed
indifference between those options and others that were better on the cost
dimension. Thus, we find strong evidence of a prominence effect in health-care
priority setting. Our findings provide a psychological explanation for why
opportunity costs (i.e., the value of choices not exercised) are neglected in
health care priority setting. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T05:32:25Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-5b91feb4d2624e429719fe2dfcfc5370 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1930-2975 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T05:32:25Z |
| publishDate | 2022-11-01 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Judgment and Decision Making |
| spelling | doaj.art-5b91feb4d2624e429719fe2dfcfc53702023-09-03T06:46:35ZengCambridge University PressJudgment and Decision Making1930-29752022-11-0117613791391The prominence effect in health-care priority settingEmil PerssonArvid ErlandssonPaul SlovicDaniel VästfjällGustav TinghögPeople often choose the option that is better on the most subjectively prominent attribute --- the prominence effect. We studied the effect of prominence in health care priority setting and hypothesized that values related to health would trump values related to costs in treatment choices, even when individuals themselves evaluated different treatment options as equally good. We conducted pre-registered experiments with a diverse Swedish sample and a sample of international experts on priority setting in health care (n = 1348). Participants, acting in the role of policy makers, revealed their valuation for different medical treatments in hypothetical scenarios. Participants were systematically inconsistent between preferences expressed through evaluation in a matching task and preferences expressed through choice. In line with our hypothesis, a large proportion of participants (General population: 92%, Experts 84% of all choices) chose treatment options that were better on the health dimension (lower health risk) despite having previously expressed indifference between those options and others that were better on the cost dimension. Thus, we find strong evidence of a prominence effect in health-care priority setting. Our findings provide a psychological explanation for why opportunity costs (i.e., the value of choices not exercised) are neglected in health care priority setting.http://journal.sjdm.org/22/220926/jdm220926.pdfprominence policymaking health care decision-making bias replicationnakeywords |
| spellingShingle | Emil Persson Arvid Erlandsson Paul Slovic Daniel Västfjäll Gustav Tinghög The prominence effect in health-care priority setting Judgment and Decision Making prominence policymaking health care decision-making bias replicationnakeywords |
| title | The prominence
effect in health-care priority setting |
| title_full | The prominence
effect in health-care priority setting |
| title_fullStr | The prominence
effect in health-care priority setting |
| title_full_unstemmed | The prominence
effect in health-care priority setting |
| title_short | The prominence
effect in health-care priority setting |
| title_sort | prominence effect in health care priority setting |
| topic | prominence policymaking health care decision-making bias replicationnakeywords |
| url | http://journal.sjdm.org/22/220926/jdm220926.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT emilpersson theprominenceeffectinhealthcareprioritysetting AT arviderlandsson theprominenceeffectinhealthcareprioritysetting AT paulslovic theprominenceeffectinhealthcareprioritysetting AT danielvastfjall theprominenceeffectinhealthcareprioritysetting AT gustavtinghog theprominenceeffectinhealthcareprioritysetting AT emilpersson prominenceeffectinhealthcareprioritysetting AT arviderlandsson prominenceeffectinhealthcareprioritysetting AT paulslovic prominenceeffectinhealthcareprioritysetting AT danielvastfjall prominenceeffectinhealthcareprioritysetting AT gustavtinghog prominenceeffectinhealthcareprioritysetting |