3 resultados para Expected Utility

em Université de Montréal


Relevância:

60.00% 60.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

We model social choices as acts mapping states of the world to (social) outcomes. A (social choice) rule assigns an act to every profile of subjective expected utility preferences over acts. A rule is strategy-proof if no agent ever has an incentive to misrepresent her beliefs about the world or her valuation of the outcomes; it is ex-post efficient if the act selected at any given preference profile picks a Pareto-efficient outcome in every state of the world. We show that every two-agent ex-post efficient and strategy-proof rule is a top selection: the chosen act picks the most preferred outcome of some (possibly different) agent in every state of the world. The states in which an agent’s top outcome is selected cannot vary with the reported valuations of the outcomes but may change with the reported beliefs. We give a complete characterization of the ex-post efficient and strategy-proof rules in the two-agent, two-state case, and we identify a rich class of such rules in the two-agent case.

Relevância:

60.00% 60.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Full Text / Article complet

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

OBJECTIVES: To report on the responsiveness testing and clinical utility of the 12-item Geriatric Self-Efficacy Index for Urinary Incontinence (GSE-UI). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Six urinary incontinence (UI) outpatient clinics in Quebec, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling incontinent adults aged 65 and older. MEASUREMENTS: The abridged 12-item GSE-UI, measuring older adults' level of confidence for preventing urine loss, was administered to all new consecutive incontinent patients 1 week before their initial clinic visit, at baseline, and 3 months posttreatment. At follow-up, a positive rating of improvement in UI was ascertained from patients and their physicians using the Patient's and Clinician's Global Impression of Improvement scales, respectively. Responsiveness of the GSE-UI was calculated using Guyatt's change index. Its clinical utility was determined using receiver operating curves. RESULTS: Eighty-nine of 228 eligible patients (39.0%) participated (mean age 72.6+5.8, range 65–90). At 3-month follow-up, 22.5% of patients were very much better, and 41.6% were a little or much better. Guyatt's change index was 2.6 for patients who changed by a clinically meaningful amount and 1.5 for patients having experienced any level of improvement. An improvement of 14 points on the 12-item GSE-UI had a sensitivity of 75.1% and a specificity of 78.2% for detecting clinically meaningful changes in UI status. Mean GSE-UI scores varied according to improvement status (P<.001) and correlated with changes in quality-of-life scores (r=0.7, P<.001) and reductions in UI episodes (r=0.4, P=.004). CONCLUSION: The GSE-UI is responsive and clinically useful.