Risk and time preferences in individuals with lifestyle-related and non-lifestyle-related cardiovascular diseases: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: To (1) pilot a study of behavioural characterisation based on risk and time preferences in clinically well-characterised individuals, (2) assess the distribution of preferences in this population and (3) explore differences in preferences between individuals with 'lifestyle-related' (LS) and 'non-lifestyle-related' (NLS) cardiovascular diseases. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with an economic online experiment to collect risk and time preferences, a detailed clinical characterisation and a sociodemographic and lifestyle survey. A definition of LS and NLS groups was developed. SETTING: Specialist outpatient clinics of the clinic for cardiology and pneumology of the University Hospital Düsseldorf and patients from a cardiology practice in Düsseldorf. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 74 individuals with cardiovascular diseases. OUTCOMES: Risk and time preferences. RESULTS: The implementation of the study process, including participant recruitment and data collection, ran smoothly. The medical checklist, the survey and the time preference instrument were well received. However, the conceptual understanding of the risk preference instrument resulted in inconsistent choices for many participants (47%). The remaining individuals were more risk averse (27%) than risk seeking (16%) and risk neutral (10%). Individuals in our sample were also more impatient (49%) than patient (42%). The participant classification showed that 65% belonged to the LS group, 19% to the NLS group and 16% could not be assigned (unclear allocation to lifestyle (ULS) group). Excluding the ULS group, we show that individuals in the LS group were more risk seeking, and unexpectedly, more patient than those in the NLS group. CONCLUSIONS: The process of the pilot study and its results can be used as a basis for the design of the main study. The differences in risk and time preferences between the LS and NLS groups provide us with a novel hypothesis for unhealthy behaviours: individuals never give up a bad habit, they simply postpone the latter, which can be tested alongside other additional research questions.

A risk-risk trade-off assessment of climate-induced mortality risk changes.

The impact of climate change on human health was identified as a priority for the UN COP26 conference. In this article, we consider climate-induced changes to mortality risks and how to incorporate these formally in the policy appraisal process. In the United Kingdom (UK), the Value of Statistical Life (VSL) is used to monetarize the benefits of policies to reduce mortality risks but it remains an open, empirical question as to whether the current VSL (£2.14 million per fatality prevented, December 2021 values) for traffic accidents should be applied in other contexts without any modification and particularly for extreme weather event fatalities. Using a representative sample of the UK population, we aim to estimate and better understand the trade-offs people make when comparing mortality risks, drawing on psychological insights from construal level and regulatory focus theories. We design a stated preference survey using a relative valuation framework with nonmonetary, risk-risk trade-off questions between extreme weather event and traffic accident mortality risks. We find evidence of an extreme weather event risk premium of 1.2-1.6 (implying a climate-related VSL of £2.52-£3.41 million). We also find that participants who are psychologically close to climate change (based on construal level theory), weigh reducing extreme weather event mortality risks almost two times that of reducing traffic accident mortality risks.

A Novel Application of Risk-Risk Tradeoffs in Occupational Health: Nurses' Occupational Asthma and Infection Risk Perceptions Related to Cleaning and Disinfection during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Nurses face the risk of new onset occupational asthma (OA) due to exposures to cleaning and disinfection (C&D) agents used to prevent infections in healthcare facilities. The objective of this study was to measure nurses' preferences when presented with simultaneous OA and respiratory viral infection (e.g., COVID-19) risks related to increased/decreased C&D activities. METHODS: Nurses working in healthcare for ≥1 year and without physician-diagnosed asthma were recruited for an online anonymous survey, including four risk-risk tradeoff scenarios between OA and respiratory infection with subsequent recovery (Infect and Recovery) or subsequent death (Infect and Death). Nurses were presented with baseline risks at hypothetical "Hospital 1", and were asked to choose Hospital 2 (increased OA risk to maintain infection risk), Hospital 3 (increased infection risk to maintain OA risk), or indicate that they were equally happy. RESULTS: Over 70% of nurses were willing to increase infection risk to maintain baseline OA risk if they were confident they would recover from the infection. However, even when the risk of infection leading to death was much lower than OA, most nurses were not willing to accept a larger (but still small) risk of death to avoid doubling their OA risk. Age, work experience, and ever having contracted or knowing anyone who has contracted a respiratory viral infection at work influenced choices. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate the novel application of a risk-risk tradeoff framework to address an occupational health issue. However, more data are needed to test the generalizability of the risk preferences found in this specific risk-risk tradeoff context.

An (un)healthy social dilemma: a normative messaging field experiment with flu vaccinations.

BACKGROUND: Influenza seasons can be unpredictable and have the potential to rapidly affect populations, especially in crowded areas. Prior research suggests that normative messaging can be used to increase voluntary provision of public goods, such as the influenza vaccine. We extend the literature by examining the influence of normative messaging on the decision to get vaccinated against influenza. METHODS: We conduct a field experiment in conjunction with University Health Services, targeting undergraduate students living on campus. We use four posters, randomized by living area clusters to advertise flu vaccination clinics during the Fall. The wording on the posters is varied to emphasize the individual benefits of the vaccine, the social benefits of the vaccine or both benefits together. We collect survey data for those vaccinated at the vaccination clinics, and for those not vaccinated via an online survey. RESULTS: We find that any normative message increases the percentage of students getting the flu vaccine compared with no message. In terms of the likelihood of getting the flu vaccine, emphasizing both the individual and social benefits of vaccination has the largest increase in the vaccination rate (19-20 percentage point increase). However, flu vaccinations did not reach the herd immunity threshold (70% of students vaccinated). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that there is a pro-social component that is relevant in individual vaccination decisions which should be accounted for when designing vaccination campaigns. The results of this normative, pro-social messaging experiment could be extended to other at-risk communities where the number of background risks is much larger. This is especially relevant nowadays, as other seasonal vaccines are being rolled out and younger adults are the ones with the lowest uptake.

Parental beliefs and willingness to pay for reduction in their child's asthma symptoms: A joint estimation approach.

Many aspects of asthma-in particular the relationship between beliefs, averting behaviors, and symptoms-are not directly observable from market data. An approach that combines observable market data with nonmarket valuation to gather data on unobservable aspects of the illness can improve efforts to quantify the burden of asthma if it accounts for the endogeneity in the system. Such approaches are used in the valuation of recreation but have not been widely used to value the burden of a chronic illness. We estimate parents' willingness to pay (WTP) to reduce their child's asthma symptoms using a three-equation model that combines revealed preference, contingent valuation, and burden of asthma, increasing the efficiency of estimation and correcting for endogeneity. WTP for a device that reduces a child's asthma symptoms by 50% is $125/month (s.d. $20). Parents' valuations are driven by beliefs about asthma and by their degree of worry about asthma between episodes. There is a nonlinear relationship between the number of days with symptoms and WTP per symptom day. The experience of living with asthma affects families' responses to a contingent valuation scenario, because it influences willingness to spend money to manage the illness and their subjective perceptions and beliefs about the illness itself.