Eliciting discounting model and direction at the individual level with time trade-off follow-up questions

Nov 12, 2025The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care

Identifying individual discounting patterns and direction using time trade-off follow-up questions

AI simplified

Longevity & Aging on OpenScience ↗PubMed ↗DOI ↗OA ↗

Abstract

Data from 148 respondents showed that only 20.4% of analyzed pairs yielded theoretically-plausible patterns.

Among theoretically plausible pairs, 60% indicated no time preference.
Responses to follow-up questions suggested that Q2 mostly implied negative time preference, while Q3 indicated positive time preference.
Majority-rule pooling within respondents produced patterns inconsistent with standard discounting models.
Observed choices may reflect an additive combination of quality-of-life and longevity rather than the multiplicative approach of the quality-adjusted life years (QALY) model.
Standard discounting models are not well suited for interpreting choices in time-trade off tasks.

AI simplified

OBJECTIVE: Time preference is increasingly considered in health state valuation. As its inclusion impacts the produced value sets, it is important to account for it using the correct specification. Various discounting functions have been used, and both directions of time preference have been identified. I aimed to extend the composite time-trade off task (composite TTO, cTTO) by follow-up questions (TTOFUs) to identify the discounting function and direction for individual respondents.

METHODS: Respondents completed cTTO tasks for 6 EQ-5D-5L health states. If utility exceeded 0.1, three TTOFUs (Q1-Q3) were posed. Each TTOFU modified the indifference-yielding alternative by halving durations (Q1) or adding a 5-year lead-time in full health (Q2) or a 5-year lag-time in the valued state (Q3). As shown in the paper, the pattern of Q1-Q3 answers unambiguously discerns the discounting function (exponential, power, or hyperbolic) and direction.

RESULTS: Data from 148 respondents, 16 health states, and 577 respondent-state pairs were analysed. Only 20.4% of pairs yielded theoretically-plausible patterns, and among those 60% imply no time preference. For Q2 and Q3, responses mostly implied negative ([Formula: see text]) and positive ([Formula: see text]) time preference, respectively. Majority-rule pooling within respondents produced a pattern not matching the considered discounting models but that can arise when quality-of-life and longevity are combined additively, not multiplicatively as in the quality-adjusted life years (QALY) model.

CONCLUSIONS: Standard discounting models poorly fit observed choices in TTO-like questions. The discounting parameters measured in other studies may be driven by other phenomena, including departures from the QALY model. Hence, careful interpretation of estimated parameters is warranted, and future studies are recommended.

Full Text

Full text is available at the source.

View full text (PDF) ↗View full text (HTML) ↗

Eliciting discounting model and direction at the individual level with time trade-off follow-up questions

Abstract

Full Text

You found one interesting study. We’ll send the next 7.

what lands in your inbox each week:

Recent issues from the longevity & aging brief