You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Life-cycle preferences over consumption and health: when is cost-effectiveness analysis equivalent to cost–benefit analysis?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Health Economics, December 1999
|
| DOI | 10.1016/s0167-6296(99)00014-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Han Bleichrodt, John Quiggin |
| Abstract |
This paper studies life-cycle preferences over consumption and health status. We show that cost-effectiveness analysis is consistent with cost-benefit analysis if the lifetime utility function is additive over time, multiplicative in the utility of consumption and the utility of health status, and if the utility of consumption is constant over time. We derive the conditions under which the lifetime utility function takes this form, both under expected utility theory and under rank-dependent utility theory, which is currently the most important nonexpected utility theory. If cost-effectiveness analysis is consistent with cost-benefit analysis, it is possible to derive tractable expressions for the willingness to pay for quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The willingness to pay for QALYs depends on wealth, remaining life expectancy, health status, and the possibilities for intertemporal substitution of consumption. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 110 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 22% |
| Researcher | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 19 | 17% |
| Unknown | 19 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 23 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 12% |
| Engineering | 13 | 12% |
| Environmental Science | 9 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 17% |
| Unknown | 28 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 52. 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 26 September 2020.
All research outputs
#820,306
of 25,576,801 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Health Economics
#167
of 2,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#694
of 108,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Health Economics
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,801 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,104 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 108,280 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.