Medical Decision Making

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hazen, G. B.
Right arrow Articles by Pellissier, J. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Hazen, G. B.
Right arrow Articles by Pellissier, J. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Medical Decision Making, Vol. 11, No. 4, 294-304 (1991)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9101100407
© 1991 Society for Medical Decision Making

Continuous-risk Utility Assessment in Medical Decision Making

Gordon B. Hazen, PhD

Wallace J. Hopp, PhD

James M. Pellissier, PhD

The authors argue that for risky medical treatment decisions, conventional utility assessment techniques are inadequate due to their emphasis on unrealistic risk magnitudes and sure consequences, leading to assessment questions that are unfamiliar to most patients, have little educational value, and do not reliably extend to the application at hand. As an alternative, medical utility assessments should be performed in a continuous-risk domain with risk levels matching those of the actual decision problem. In support of this position, the authors describe an empirical study that compares the responses of subjects under a conventional assessment protocol with those of subjects under a continuous-risk utility assessment protocol. Prelim inary results show that conventional assessment protocols result in significantly lower esti mates of the degrees of risk aversion compared with a more realistic continuous-risk protocol. Key words: continuous-risk utility assessment; decision making. (Med Decis Making 1991 ;11:294-304)


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JBJSHome page
E. Sharifi, H. Sharifi, S. Morshed, K. Bozic, and M. Diab
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Periacetabular Osteotomy
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., July 1, 2008; 90(7): 1447 - 1456.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
A.M. Stiggelbout, G.M. Kiebert, J. Kievit, J.W.H. Leer, G. Stoter, and J.C.J.M. De Haes
Utility Assessment in Cancer Patients: Adjustment of Time Tradeoff Scores for the Utility of Life Years and Comparison with Standard Gamble Scores
Med Decis Making, February 1, 1994; 14(1): 82 - 90.
[Abstract] [PDF]