Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 20, 2026

Measuring Delay Discounting in Humans Using an Adjusting Amount Task
Published on: January 9, 2016
Linking Minimally Important Differences (MID) and Acceptable Regret to Elicit Values and Preferences in Health
Benjamin Djulbegovic1, Iztok Hozo2, Gordon Guyatt3
1Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Division of Medical Hematology and Oncology, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Rationale, Aims And Objectives:
Most methods for elicitation of values and preferences (V&P) ask respondents directly to make explicit numerical trade-offs across outcomes, such as judging how many strokes equal one death. Although conceptually straightforward, these tasks are cognitively demanding, uncomfortable for many patients and panellists, and prone to instability when multiple outcomes must be compared. This paper proposes an integrated framework that starts with minimally important differences (MIDs), links them to acceptable regret, and then converts them into relative values (RVs) for use as V&P in decision-analytical models.
Methods:
We describe a three-step approach. First, respondents identify the smallest absolute change in outcome frequency that would be important enough to justify a different decision. Second, acceptable regret is used to interpret and calibrate these thresholds as the amount of utility loss from a wrong decision that patients can tolerate. Third, MIDs are transformed into RVs on a common scale anchored to a worst outcome, usually death, and entered as V&P into a weighted disutility expected utility model.
Results:
The resulting framework is designed to replace difficult, cognitively demanding elicitation of V&P with simpler threshold judgements, maintains proportional relationships among outcomes regardless of the chosen anchor, reduces the number of required judgements, and yields internally consistent weights for multiple benefits and harms. A worked example shows how MID thresholds for death, stroke, myocardial infarction, major bleeding and brain bleeding are converted into RVs and then incorporated into a transparent benefit-harm calculation.
Conclusions:
Integrating MIDs, acceptable regret and RVs offer a coherent approach to eliciting values and preferences for clinical decision-making, guideline development and health policy. The approach is easy to explain, well aligned with human decision processes and readily applicable at both individual and population levels.
More Related Videos
08:24The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies
Published on: August 25, 2023
13:04Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods
Published on: September 19, 2012
Related Concept Videos
Decision Making: P-value Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is proposed. The claim is based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to the claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses: a null hypothesis would be a neutral statement while the alternative hypothesis can have a...
Regression Toward the Mean
Framing Effects
Models of Health Promotion and Illness Prevention I
The health belief model (HBM) attempts to predict health-related behavior in specific belief patterns. According to the HBM, a person's...
Models of Health Promotion and Illness Prevention II
The agent-host-environment model states that disease results from...
Pharmacokinetic Models: Comparison and Selection Criterion
Physiological models take a detailed approach by considering specific molecular processes. They can predict drug distribution, metabolism, and elimination changes, providing a comprehensive understanding of how drugs interact with the body.