Being Kind to Your Future Self: Probability Discounting of Health Decision-Making
- 663 Downloads
Nearly 50 % of patients with chronic medical illness exhibit poor treatment adherence. When making treatment decisions, these patients must balance the probability of current side effects against the probability of long-term benefits. This study examines if the behavioral economic construct of probability discounting can be used to explain treatment decisions in chronic disease.
Thirty-eight nonadherent and 39 adherent patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) completed a series of hypothetical treatment scenarios with varied risk and benefit probabilities.
As described by a hyperbolic probability discounting model, all patients reported decreased medication initiation as the probability of treatment efficacy decreased and the probability of treatment side effects increased. When compared to adherent patients, nonadherent patients significantly devalued treatment efficacy and inflated treatment risk.
The methods in this study can be used to identify optimal risk/benefit ratios for treatment development and inform the process by which patients make treatment decisions.
KeywordsProbability discounting Multiple sclerosis Temporal discounting Medical decision-making Behavioral economics Treatment adherence Compliance
This project was supported in part by grant to J. Bruce from the National Multiple Sclerosis (HC 0138) and a grant to M. Glusman from the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Graduate Studies.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Authors’ Statement of Conflict of Interest and Adherence to Ethical Standards
Dr. J. Bruce is a member of the Novartis Unbranded Speakers Bureau and the Novartis MS Cognition Medical Advisory Board. He is also a consultant to the National Hockey League. Authors A. Bruce, Catley, Lynch, Goggin, Reed, Lim, Strober, Glusman, Ness, and Jarmolowicz declare that they have no conflict of interest. All procedures, including the informed consent process, were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.
- 4.Sabate E. Adherence to Long-Term Therapies - Evidence for Action. Geneva: World Health Organziation; 2003.Google Scholar
- 24.Mazur J. An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In: Mazur J, Commons M, Nevin J, Rachlin H, eds. Quantitative Analyses of Behavior, Vol 5: The effect of delay and of intervening events on reinforcement value. Hillsdale: Erlbaum; 1987.Google Scholar
- 29.Bickel W, Vuchinich RE, editors. Reframing health behavior change with behavioral economics: Psychology Press; 2000.Google Scholar