Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
Published in: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Methodology

Cultural beliefs, utility values, and health technology assessment

Authors: Jörg Mahlich, Piyameth Dilokthornsakul, Rosarin Sruamsiri, Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk

Published in: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Health-care utilities differ considerably from country to country. Our objective was to examine the association of cultural values based on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions’ theory with utility values that were identified using the time trade off method.

Methods

We performed a literature search to determine preference-based value algorithms in the general population of a given country. We then fitted a second-order quadratic function to assess the utility function curve that links health status with health-care utilities. We ranked the countries according to the concavity and convexity properties of their utility functions and compared this ranking with that of the Hofstede index to check if there were any similarities.

Results

We identified 10 countries with an EQ-5D-5L-based value set and 7 countries with an EQ-5D-3L-based value set. Japan’s degree of concavity was highest, while Germany’s was lowest, based on the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L value sets. Japan also ranked first in the Hofstede long-term orientation index, and rankings related to the degree of concavity, indicating a low time preference rate.

Conclusions

This is the first evaluation to identify and report an association between different cultural beliefs and utility values. These findings underline the necessity to take local values into consideration when designing health technology assessment systems.
Literature
1.
2.
Lenert L, Kaplan RM. Validity and interpretation of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life. Med Care. 2000;38(9):138–50.
3.
Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Ikeda S, Igarashi A, Noto S, Saito S, et al. Japanese population norms for preference-based measures: EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(3):707–19.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Burstrom K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F. A comparison of individual and social time-trade-off values for health states in the general population. Health Policy. 2006;76(3):359–70.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Hofstede G. Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2001.
6.
Hofstede G, Bond M. The confucius connection: from cultural roots to economic growth. Organ Dyn. 1988;16(4):4–21.CrossRef
7.
Gafni A. The standard gamble method: what is being measured and how it is interpreted. Health Serv Res. 1994;29(2):207–24.PubMedPubMedCentral
8.
von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behavior. London: Wiley; 1944.
9.
Hofstede G. Culture’s consequences: international differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1980.
10.
Al Obaidi L, Mahlich J. A potential gender bias in assessing quality of life—a standard gamble experiment among university students. ClinicoEconomics Outcomes Res. 2015;7:227–33.
11.
Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U, Schupp J, Wagner GG. Individual risk attitudes: measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. J Eur Econ Assoc. 2011;9(3):522–50.CrossRef
12.
Eckel CC, Grossman PJ. Forecasting risk attitudes: an experimental study using actual and forecast gamble choices. J Econ Behav Organ. 2008;68(1):1–17.CrossRef
13.
Hartog J, Ferrer-i-Carbonell A, Jonker N. Linking measured risk aversion to individual characteristics. Kyklos. 2002;55(1):3–26.CrossRef
14.
Holt CA, Laury SK. Risk aversion and incentive effects. Am Econ Rev. 2002;92(5):1644–55.CrossRef
15.
Harbaugh WT, Krause K, Vesterlund L. Risk attitudes of children and adults: choices over small and large probability gains and losses. Exp Econ. 2002;5(1):53–84.CrossRef
16.
Croson R, Gneezy U. Gender differences in preferences. J Econ Lit. 2009;47(2):448–74.CrossRef
17.
Golsteyn B, Heckman J, Meijers H. Gender differences in risk aversion and ambiguity aversion. J Eur Econ Assoc. 2009;7(2–3):649–58.
18.
Khodarahimi S. Sensation-seeking and risk-taking behaviors: a study on young Iranian adults.Appl Res Qual. Life. 2015;10(4):721–34.
19.
Bayyurt N, Karışık V, Coşkun A. Gender differences in investment preferences. Eur J Econ Political Stud. 2013;6(1):71–83.
20.
Barber BM, Odean T. Boys will be boys: gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment. Q J Econ. 2001;116(1):261–92.CrossRef
21.
22.
23.
Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N. EQ-5D value sets: inventory comparative review and user guide. Dordrecht: Springer; 2007.CrossRef
24.
Tongsiri S, Cairns J. Estimating population-based values for EQ-5D health states in Thailand. Value Health. 2011;14:1142–5.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Van Hout B, Janssen MF, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15(5):708–15.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Pratt J. Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica. 1966;32(1/2):122–36.CrossRef
27.
Brazier JE, Fukuhara S, Roberts J, et al. Estimating a preference-based index from the Japanese SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1323–31.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Cruz JN, Camey SA, Hoffmann JF, et al. Estimating the SF-6D value set for a population based sample of Brazilians. Value Health. 2011;14:S108–14.CrossRefPubMed
29.
30.
Hofstede G, Hofstede GJ, Minkov M. Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. revised and expanded. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2010.
31.
Mahlich J, Kamae I, Rossi B. A new health technology assessment system for Japan? Simulating the potential impact on the price of Simeprevir. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33(1):121–7.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Uzawa H. An endogenous rate of time preference, the Penrose effect, and dynamic optimality of environmental quality. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1996;93(12):5770–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Ogawa K. Economic development and time preference schedule: the Case of Japan and East Asian NICs. J Dev Econ. 1993;42:175–95.CrossRef
34.
Peretti-Watel P, L’Haridon O, Seror V. Time preferences, socioeconomic status and smokers’ behaviour, attitudes and risk awareness. Eur J Public Health. 2013;23:783e–8e.CrossRef
35.
Jusot F, Khlat M. The role of time and risk preferences in smoking inequalities: a population-based study. Addict Behav. 2013;38:2167–73.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Farrell P, Fuchs V. Schooling and health: the cigarette connection. J Health Econ. 1982;1(3):217–30.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U. Are risk aversion and impatience related to cognitive ability? Am Econ Rev. 2010;100(3):1238–60.CrossRef
38.
Benjamin D, Brown S, Shapiro J. Who is ‘behavioural’? cognitive ability and anomalous preferences. J Eur Econ Assoc. 2013;11(6):1231–55.CrossRef
39.
Golsteyn B, Grönqvist H, Lindahl L. Adolescent time preferences predict lifetime outcomes. Econ J. 2014;124:F739–61.CrossRef
40.
41.
Nagin D, Pogarsky G. Time and punishment: delayed consequences and criminal behavior. J Quant Criminol. 2004;20:295–317.CrossRef
42.
Ohr S, Jeong S, Saul P. Cultural and religious beliefs and values, and their impact on preferences for end-of-life care among four ethnic groups of community-dwelling older persons. J Clin Nurs. 2017;26(11–12):1681–9.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Balthussen R, Jansen MP, Mikkelsen E, Tromp N, Hontelez J, Bijlmakers L, Van der Wilt G. Priority setting for universal health coverage: we need evidence-informed deliberative processes, not just more evidence on costeffectiveness. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(11):615–8.CrossRef
44.
Metadata
Title
Cultural beliefs, utility values, and health technology assessment
Authors
Jörg Mahlich
Piyameth Dilokthornsakul
Rosarin Sruamsiri
Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1478-7547
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-018-0103-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research

Econometric estimation of WHO-CHOICE country-specific costs for inpatient and outpatient health service delivery

Research

Cost-effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in elective cesarean section

Research

Cost-effectiveness of strategies to prevent road traffic injuries in eastern sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia: new results from WHO-CHOICE

Methodology

Incorporating economies of scale in the cost estimation in economic evaluation of PCV and HPV vaccination programmes in the Philippines: a game changer?

Research

Cost-effectiveness of tiotropium versus omalizumab for uncontrolled allergic asthma in US

Review

Primary and secondary prevention interventions for cardiovascular disease in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review of economic evaluations