Predicting medical practices using various risk attitude measures
- 219 Downloads
This paper investigates the predictive power of several risk attitude measures on a series of medical practices. We elicit risk preferences on a sample of 1500 French general practitioners (GPs) using two different classes of tools: scales, which measure GPs’ own perception of their willingness to take risks between 0 and 10; and lotteries, which require GPs to choose between a safe and a risky option in a series of hypothetical situations. In addition to a daily life risk scale that measures a general risk attitude, risk taking is measured in different domains for each tool: financial matters, GPs’ own health, and patients’ health. We take advantage of the rare opportunity to combine these multiple risk attitude measures with a series of self-reported or administratively recorded medical practices. We successively test the predictive power of our seven risk attitude measures on eleven medical practices affecting the GPs’ own health or their patients’ health. We find that domain-specific measures are far better predictors than the general risk attitude measure. Neither of the two classes of tools (scales or lotteries) seems to perform indisputably better than the other, except when we concentrate on the only non-declarative practice (prescription of biological tests), for which the classic money-lottery test works well. From a public health perspective, appropriate measures of willingness to take risks may be used to make a quick, but efficient, profiling of GPs and target them with personalized communications, or interventions, aimed at improving practices.
KeywordsMedical practices Risk attitude Lottery choice Scale Domain specificity
JEL ClassificationC93 D81 I10
We thank all GPs who participated in the survey as well as members of the supervisory committee of the French Panel of General Practices. The French Panel of General Practices received funding from Direction de la Recherche, des Etudes, de l’Evaluation et des Statistiques (DREES) — Ministère du travail, des relations sociales, de la famille, de la solidarité et de la ville, Ministère de la santé et des sports, through a multiannual agreement on objectives. Aix-Marseille School of Economics (Agence Nationale de la Recherche — Labex) also provided financial support.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
- 31.Masseria, C., Irwin, R., Thomson, S., Gemmill, M., Mossialos, E.: Primary care in Europe. London Sch. Econ, London (2009). (Policy brief) Google Scholar
- 35.Long, J.S.: Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1997)Google Scholar
- 38.Bardsley, N., Cubitt, R., Loomes, G., Moffatt, P., Starmer, C., Sugden, R.: Incentives in experiments. Experimental economics: rethinking the rules, pp. 244–285. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2009)Google Scholar
- 40.Nebout, A., Cavillon, M., Ventelou, B.: Comparing GPs’ risk attitudes for their own health and for their patients’: a troubling discrepancy? BMC Health Serv. Res. (forthcoming)Google Scholar