Ambiguity preferences for health

Healthcare workers' infection risk perceptions of aerosol-generating procedures and affective response

Objective

To understand healthcare worker (HCW) perceptions of infection risk associated with aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) and their affective response to performing AGPs.

Design

Systematic review.

Methods

Systematic searches of PubMed, CINHAL Plus, and Scopus were conducted using combinations of selected keywords and synonyms. To reduce bias, titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility by 2 independent reviewers. Also, 2 independent reviewers extracted data from each eligible record. Discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached.

Results

In total, 16 reports from across the globe were included in this review. Findings suggest that AGPs are generally perceived to place HCWs at high risk of becoming infected with respiratory pathogens and that this perception stimulates a negative affective response and hesitancy to participate in the procedures.

Conclusions

AGP risk perception are complex and context dependent but have important influences on HCW infection control practices, decision to participate in AGPs, emotional welfare, and workplace satisfaction. New and unfamiliar hazards paired with uncertainty lead to fear and anxiety about personal and others' safety. These fears may create a psychological burden conducive to burnout. Empirical research is needed to thoroughly understand the interplay between HCW risk perceptions of distinct AGPs, their affective responses to conducting these procedures under various conditions, and their resulting decision to participate in these procedures. Results from such studies are essential for advancing clinical practice; they point to methods for mitigating provider distress and better recommendations for when and how to conduct AGPs.

Reference-dependent age weighting of quality-adjusted life years

People do not only care about maximizing health gains but also about their distribution. For example, they give more weight to younger patients than older patients. This pilot study aims to investigate if age weighting is reinforced by loss aversion if young people are falling behind one's perceived 'normal' quality of life (QoL), while older people do not. We apply a person trade-off method in a large representative sample (n = 990) to estimate age weighting factors. We also measure QoL levels that individuals regard as 'normal' for different ages, serving as reference points. We observe a considerable amount of age weighting, with 20-year-old patients on average receiving 1.7 times as much weight as 80-year-old patients. Perceived 'normal' QoL rapidly decreases with age of a patient. Older people are more optimistic about what constitutes 'normal QoL' than younger people, but they express a faster decline in normal QoL due to aging. Respondents who view all improvements to be gain enlarging show the least age weighting, but loss aversion cannot explain the results. Still, one's age-related reference level is an important predictor of age weights. Given the explorative nature of this study, further studies are called for to generate more robust evidence.

Vaccination under pessimistic expectations in clinical trials and immunization campaigns

We provide one of the first formalizations of a vaccination campaign in a decision-theoretic framework. We analyze a model where an ambiguity-averse individual must decide how much effort to invest into prevention in the context of a rampant disease. We study how ambiguity aversion affects the effort and the estimation of the vaccine efficacy in clinical trials and immunization campaigns. We find that the behaviors of individuals participating in a clinical trial differ from individuals not participating. Individuals who are more optimistic toward vaccination participate more in trials. Their behaviors and efforts are also affected. As a result, because vaccine efficacy depends on unobserved behaviors and efforts, the biological effect of the vaccine becomes difficult to evaluate. During the scale-up phase of a vaccination campaign, provided that vaccine efficacy is established, we show that vaccine hesitancy may still be rational.

Risk perceptions and risk-averse attitude influenced older patients' first-diagnosis-seeking behaviour at tertiary hospitals

OBJECTIVE

This qualitative study aimed to investigate the associations of older patients' inappropriate healthcare-seeking behaviour at tertiary hospitals in China with their risk perceptions and attitude.

METHODS

The study was based on nine focus group interviews (involving 41 older patients, with three to six per group) and involved the grounded theory method. The participants were recruited at tertiary hospitals.

RESULTS

The results of this study showed that older patients' inappropriate first-diagnosis-seeking behaviour at tertiary hospitals was impacted by their risk perceptions and risk-averse attitude. Both external factors (family/friends and the Internet) and internal factors (preferences and habits) had played important roles in related processes.

CONCLUSION

Thus, to guide older patients' healthcare-seeking behaviour, changing the thoughts and behaviour of the older patients themselves, their spouses, adult children, other relatives, and friends are all important. More attention should be paid on guiding appropriate risk perceptions and attitude regarding lower-level medical institutions, increasing their preferences and habit formation regarding lower-level medical institutions, enhancing older patients' social support and improving and standardising online health information. These are important for the future development of the hierarchical medical system in China.

Decision Thresholds for Medical Tests Under Ambiguity Aversion

We consider medical decision-making under diagnostic and therapeutic uncertainty and analyze how ambiguity aversion affects the decisions to test and treat, thereby contributing to the understanding of the observed heterogeneity of such decisions. We show that under diagnostic ambiguity (i.e., the probability of disease is ambiguous), prior testing becomes more attractive if the default option is no treatment and less so if the default option is treatment. Conversely, with therapeutic ambiguity (i.e., the probability of a successful treatment is ambiguous), ambiguity aversion reduces the tolerance toward treatment failure so that the test option is chosen at a lower probability of failure. We differentiate between conditional and unconditional ambiguity aversion and show that this differentiation has implications for the propensity to test. We conclude by discussing the normative scope of ambiguity aversion for the recommendations and decisions of regulatory bodies.

On the effect of uncertainty on personal vaccination decisions

This study investigates the effect of ambiguity on personal vaccination decisions. We first characterize the vaccination decision in the absence of ambiguity. We then show that uncertainty about the probability of side effects and the efficacy of the vaccine always reduces take-up under ambiguity aversion. However, uncertainty about the underlying disease, being the probability of sickness or the probability of a severe course of disease, may either encourage or discourage vaccination. Our results are relevant for policy because reducing uncertainty associated with the vaccine always has the desired effect whereas reducing uncertainty associated with the disease may have unintended consequences.

Physician Well-being and the Future of Health Information Technology

The issue of clinician burnout has become a growing concern in health care, with an increased emphasis on health information technology as a contributing factor. Technology-mediated stresses have arisen with the electronic health record, and we can anticipate new and different impacts from future information tools. This article discusses technology's pivotal role in physician well-being, not only in the quality of its design but also through its capacity to enable future models of care that are more manageable for physicians and more effective for patients. Three general aims along with specific efforts are proposed to benefit physician well-being in technology-mediated work.

Beliefs and Risk Perceptions About COVID-19: Evidence From Two Successive French Representative Surveys During Lockdown

BACKGROUND

The outbreak of COVID-19 has been a major interrupting event, challenging how societies and individuals deal with risk. An essential determinant of the virus' spread is a series of individual decisions, such as wearing face masks in public space. Those decisions depend on trade-offs between costs (or benefits) and risks, and beliefs are key to explain these.

METHODS

We elicit beliefs about the COVID-19 pandemic during lockdown in France by means of surveys asking French citizens about their belief of the infection fatality ratio (IFR) for COVID-19, own risk to catch the disease, risk as perceived by others, and expected prevalence rate. Those self-assessments were measured twice during lockdown: about 2 weeks after lockdown started and about 2 weeks before lockdown ended. We also measured the quality of these beliefs with respect to available evidence at the time of the surveys, allowing us to assess the calibration of beliefs based on risk-related socio-demographics. Finally, comparing own risk to expected prevalence rates in the two successive surveys provides a dynamic view of comparative optimism with respect to the disease.

RESULTS

The risk perceptions are rather high in absolute terms and they increased between the two surveys. We found no evidence for an impact of personal experience with COVID-19 on beliefs and lower risk perceptions of the IFR when someone in the respondent's family has been diagnosed with a disease. Answers to survey 1 confirmed this pattern with a clear indication that respondents were optimistic about their chances to catch COVID-19. However, in survey 2, respondents revealed comparative pessimism.

CONCLUSION

The results show that respondents overestimated the probabilities to catch or die from COVID-19, which is not unusual and does not necessarily reflect a strong deviation from rational behavior. While a rational model explains why the own risk to catch COVID-19 rose between the two surveys, it does not explain why the subjective assessment of the IFR remained stable. The comparative pessimism in survey 2 was likely due to a concomitant increase in the respondents' perceived chances to catch the disease and a decreased expected prevalence rate.

Reducing the relative value of cigarettes: Considerations for nicotine and non-nicotine factors

Despite notable progress in recent decades, cigarette smoke persists as a leading cause of premature death and preventable disease. To weaken the link between nicotine reinforcement and the toxicity associated with combusted tobacco, the United States Food and Drug Administration is considering a product standard targeting cigarette nicotine content. In this review, we summarize research assessing the potential impacts of reducing nicotine in cigarettes. Evidence to date suggests cigarette smoking, toxicant exposure and dependence would decline following substantial reductions in nicotine content. However, reduced nicotine content may not eliminate smoking entirely. Regulatory efforts that shape the nicotine and tobacco marketplace should consider that non-nicotine reinforcing factors and decision-making biases can contribute to the value of smoking. The impact of reducing nicotine in cigarettes will likely depend on the alternative nicotine products available to current smokers. This article is part of the special issue on 'Contemporary Advances in Nicotine Neuropharmacology'.

The willingness to pay for health improvement under comorbidity ambiguity

Accumulated medical information is necessary to determine comorbidity risk between a primary disease and secondary diseases. However, medical decisions often must be made without conclusive evidence because individuals do not have sufficient information. By introducing ambiguity regarding comorbidities, we describe situations in which individuals face a set of plausible comorbidity risks that determines the correlations between primary and secondary diseases. This study examines the conditions under which the willingness to pay for health improvement is larger with comorbidity ambiguity than without it. This study also examines the effect of changes in ambiguity and ambiguity aversion on the willingness to pay.

QALYs without bias? Nonparametric correction of time trade-off and standard gamble weights based on prospect theory

Common health state valuation methodologies, such as standard gamble (SG) and time trade-off (TTO), typically produce different weights for identical health states. We attempt to alleviate these differences by correcting the confounding influences modeled in prospect theory: loss aversion and probability weighting. Furthermore, we correct for nonlinear utility of life duration. In contrast to earlier attempts at correcting TTO and SG weights, we measure and correct all these tenets simultaneously, using newly developed nonparametric methodology. These corrections were applied to three less-than-perfect health states, measured with TTO and SG. We found considerable loss aversion and probability weighting for both gains and losses in life years, and we observe concave utility for gains and convex utility for losses in life years. After correction, the initially significant differences in weights between TTO and SG disappeared for all health states. Our findings suggest new opportunities to account for bias in health state valuations but also the need for further validation of resulting weights.

The Corrective Approach: Policy Implications of Recent Developments in QALY Measurement Based on Prospect Theory

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Common health state valuation methodology, such as time tradeoff (TTO) and standard gamble (SG), is typically applied under several descriptively invalid assumptions, for example, related to linear quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) or expected utility (EU) theory. Hence, the current use of results from health state valuation exercises may lead to biased QALY weights, which may in turn affect decisions based on economic evaluations using such weights. Methods have been proposed to correct responses for the biases associated with different health state valuation techniques. In this article we outline the relevance of prospect theory (PT), which has become the dominant descriptive alternative to EU, for health state valuations and economic evaluations.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We provide an overview of work in this field, which aims to remove biases from QALY weights. We label this "the corrective approach." By quantifying PT parameters, such as loss aversion, probability weighting, and nonlinear utility, it may be possible to correct TTO and SG responses for biases in an attempt to produce more valid estimates of preferences for health states. Through straightforward examples, this article illustrates the effects of this corrective approach and discusses several unresolved issues that currently limit the relevance of corrected weights for policy.

CONCLUSIONS

Suggestions for research addressing these issues are provided. Nonetheless, if validly corrected health state valuations become available, we argue in favor of using these in economic evaluations.

A QALY loss is a QALY loss is a QALY loss: a note on independence of loss aversion from health states

Evidence has accumulated documenting loss aversion for monetary and, recently, for health outcomes-meaning that, generally, losses carry more weight than equally sized gains. In the conventional Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) models, which comprise utility for quality and length of life, loss aversion is not taken into account. When measuring elements of the QALY model, commonly, the (implicit) assumption is that utility for length and quality of life are independent. First attempts to quantify loss aversion for QALYs typically measured loss aversion in the context of life duration, keeping quality of life constant (or vice versa). However, given that QALYs are multi-attribute utilities, it may be possible that the degree of loss aversion is dependent on, or inseparable from, quality of life and non-constant. We test this assumption using non-parametric methodology to quantify loss aversion, under different levels of quality of life. We measure utility of life duration for four health states within subjects, and present the results of a robustness test of loss aversion within the QALY model. We find loss aversion coefficients to be stable at the aggregate level, albeit with considerable heterogeneity at the individual level. Implications for applied work on prospect theory within health economics are discussed.