Construction of Health Preferences: A Comparison of Direct Value Assessment and Personal Narratives

José H. Kerstholt, Fred van der Zwaard, Hans Bart and Anita Cremers
Additional contact information
José H. Kerstholt: Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands, jose.kerstholt@tno.nl
Fred van der Zwaard: Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands
Hans Bart: Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands
Anita Cremers: Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands

Medical Decision Making, 2009, vol. 29, issue 4, 513-520

Abstract: Background. Most terminally ill patients prefer to die at home rather than at an institution. However, patients are often insufficiently aware of the downsides of staying at home, which signals a need for effective decision aids. Objectives. The main purpose of the present study was to compare indirect methods of value elicitation (personal narratives [``stories''] in text or video) with a direct method (assessment of the subjective importance of each attribute). Methods . The authors asked 183 participants to evaluate 3 possible places to die: home, hospice, and nursing home. The participants received 1 of 3 value elicitation methods. The main dependent variable was participants' evaluations of the choice options before and after value elicitation, measured on a 100-point scale. Results . A shift occurred between pre- and posttest, F(4, 342) = 4.11, P = 0.003, only with the indirect methods. When text and videos were used, participants became more positive about a hospice (text: 41.9 to 49.1; video: 52.9 to 60.3). In the video condition, participants also became more positive about a nursing home (from 20.9 to 24.9). Conclusion . Stories have more impact in shaping people's preferences than merely asking for an assessment of attribute importance. The most straightforward explanation for this effect is that stories, particularly when presented in video, provide a better image of potential consequences.

Keywords: decision making; uncertainty; choice behaviour; decision support systems; clinical; decision making; computer assisted. (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2009
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X09331809 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:4:p:513-520

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09331809

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().