Objectives: Health state utilities play an important role in decision analysis and cost-utility analysis. The question whose utilities to use at various levels of health-care decision-making has been subject of considerable debate. The observation that patients often value their own health, but also other health states, higher than members of the general public raises the question what underlies such differences? Is it an artifact of the valuation methods? Is it adaptation versus poor anticipated adaptation? This article describes a framework for the understanding and study of potential mechanisms that play a role in health state valuation. It aims at connecting research from within different fields so that cross-fertilization of ideas may occur.
Methods: The framework is based on stimulus response models from social judgment theory. For each phase, from stimulus, through information interpretation and integration, to judgment, and, finally, to response, we provide evidence of factors and processes that may lead to different utilities in patients and healthy subjects.
Results: Examples of factors and processes described are the lack of scope of scenarios in the stimulus phase, and appraisal processes and framing effects in the information interpretation phase. Factors that play a role in the judgment phase are, for example, heuristics and biases, adaptation, and comparison processes. Some mechanisms related to the response phase are end aversion bias, probability distortion, and noncompensatory decision-making.
Conclusions: The framework serves to explain many of the differences in valuations between respondent groups. We discuss some of the findings as they relate to the field of response shift research. We propose issues for discussion in the field, and suggestions for improvement of the process of utility assessment.