Dataset Information

Stability of Risk Preferences During COVID-19: Evidence From Four Measurements.

ABSTRACT: This article studies the stability of risk-preference during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results differ between risk-preference measurements and also men and women. We use March 13, 2020, when President Trump declared a national state of emergency as a time anchor to define the pre-pandemic and on-pandemic periods. The pre-pandemic experiment was conducted on February 21, 2020. There are three on-pandemic rounds conducted 10 days, 15 days, and 20 days after the COVID-19 emergency declaration. We include four different risk-preference measures. Men are more sensitive to the pandemic and become more risk-averse based on the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Women become more risk-averse in the Social and Experience Seeking domains based on the results from the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) and Sensation Seeking Scales (SSS). Both men's and women's risk-preference are stable during COVID-19 based on a Gamble Choice (GC) task. The results match our hypotheses which are based on the discussion about whether the psychological construct of risk-preference is general or domain-specific. The differential outcomes between incentivized behavioral and self-reported propensity measures of risk-preference in our experiment show the caveats for studies using a single measure to test risk-preference changes during COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Zhang P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8868569 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Stability of Risk Preferences During COVID-19: Evidence From Four Measurements.

Zhang Peilu P Palma Marco A MA

Frontiers in psychology 20220210

This article studies the stability of risk-preference during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results differ between risk-preference measurements and also men and women. We use March 13, 2020, when President Trump declared a national state of emergency as a time anchor to define the pre-pandemic and on-pandemic periods. The pre-pandemic experiment was conducted on February 21, 2020. There are three on-pandemic rounds conducted 10 days, 15 days, and 20 days after the COVID-19 emergency declaration. We ...[more]

PMID: 35222133

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a major impact on healthcare services with many changes to telehealth care delivery. More information is needed about the patient perspective of telehealth in hospital services and the potential costs and benefits for patients.AimTo measure patients' evaluation of telehealth, preferences for telehealth versus in-person appointments, and potential cost savings by patient characteristics.MethodsA cross-sectional online survey (including patient and appointment characteristics, telehealth evaluation, preferences for care and costs) of adult patients using video telehealth in four metropolitan tertiary hospital services in Melbourne, Victoria.ResultsA total of 1045 patients (median age 44 years; interquartile range 29-59) participated with an overall response rate of 9.2%. For 98.7% patients, telehealth was convenient, 96.4% stated that it saved time, 95.9% found telehealth acceptable to receive care and 97.0% found that telehealth improved their access to care. Most (62.6%) preferred in-person consultations, although 86.9% agreed that telehealth was equivalent to an in-person consultation. Those in regional and rural areas were less likely to prefer in-person consultations. Patients attending for medical reasons were less likely to prefer in-person consultation compared with patients with surgical reasons. Patient preference to telehealth was independent of level of education, appointment type, self-rated health status and socio economic status. Patients saved an average of A$120.9 (standard deviation A$93.0) per appointment, with greater cost savings for patients from low and middle socio economic areas and regional or rural areas.ConclusionTelehealth video consultations were largely evaluated positively with most patients considering the service to be as good as in-person. Understanding patient preference is critical to consider when implementing telehealth as mainstream across hospital health services.

Project description:BackgroundDiscrete choice experiments (DCEs) are frequently used to study preferences and quantify tradeoffs in decision making. It is important to understand how stable their results are.ObjectiveTo investigate to what extent an extreme change in context, the COVID-19 pandemic, affected preferences for vaccine priority setting, as observed in an earlier DCE.MethodsWe replicated a DCE in which participants had to prioritize vaccination programs for public funding. The initial DCE was executed in Flanders (Belgium) right before the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (December 2019, N = 1,636). The replicated DCE was executed 6 months later when the population was in lockdown (April 2020, N = 1,127). A total of 612 respondents participated in both waves of the DCE. We used panel mixed logit models to quantify attribute and level importance and compared utility estimates for consistency.ResultsThe number of vaccine-preventable deaths became less important during the pandemic than before, whereas the influential attributes, the vaccine's contribution to disease eradication and certainty about vaccine effectiveness became even more important. Respondents attached equal importance to the number of patients with transient or permanent morbidity, to the disease's economic impact as well as to its equity profile.ConclusionDifferent preferences for vaccine priority setting were observed during the first COVID-19 lockdown as compared with before, although these differences were, given the extreme nature of the changing circumstances, relatively small.HighlightsWe replicated a discrete choice experiment (DCE) about vaccine priority setting during the first COVID-19 lockdown and compared results with those from the original setting.The major attributes, contribution to disease eradication, and scientific certainty about vaccine effectiveness became even more important than they already were, whereas avoidable mortality became less important.Respondents attached equal importance to the number of patients with transient or permanent morbidity, to the disease's economic impact as well as to its equity profile.An extreme change in directly related context to the choice assignment led to changes in stated preferences, although these changes were relatively small, given the extreme change in context.Priorities in the second DCE were even less aligned with cost-effectiveness analysis than those observed initially.

Dataset Information

Stability of Risk Preferences During COVID-19: Evidence From Four Measurements.

Publications

Stability of Risk Preferences During COVID-19: Evidence From Four Measurements.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets