↓ Skip to main content

Emotions and scope effects in the monetary valuation of health

Overview of attention for article published in HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Emotions and scope effects in the monetary valuation of health
Published in
HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10198-017-0885-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

María V. Avilés Blanco, Raúl Brey, Jorge Araña, José Luis Pinto Prades

Abstract

This study presents evidence on the role of emotions in the monetary evaluation of health technologies, namely, drug-eluting stents (DES) in our case. It is shown that subjects who are very afraid of having to undergo an angioplasty are: (a) less sensitive to the size of the risk reduction provided by DES and (b) willing to pay more. The lack of scope sensitivity questions the normative validity of the responses of highly emotional subjects. We provide evidence of this effect using what we call the cognitive-emotional random utility model and the responses of a face-to-face, computer-assisted personal interview survey conducted in a representative sample of the Spanish general population (n = 1663).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 20%
Researcher 3 20%
Librarian 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Professor 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 27%
Psychology 3 20%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 3 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 April 2017.
All research outputs
#4,660,989
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#299
of 1,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,578
of 322,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#13
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,886 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.