Fair innings: An empirical test

Last registered on December 14, 2021

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Fair innings: An empirical test
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0008694
Initial registration date
December 11, 2021

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
December 14, 2021, 4:35 PM EST

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Toulouse School of Economics, INRAE

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2021-12-20
End date
2021-12-24
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
The main research objective is to test empirically the concept of “fair innings”, as introduced in Adler et al. (2021). This paper provides a rigorous basis in economic theory for the “fair innings” concept, proposed in the public health literature: as between an older individual and a similarly situated younger individual (one with the same income and risk profile), a risk reduction for the younger individual is accorded greater social weight even if the gains to expected lifetime utility are equal.

Adler M, Ferranna M, Hammitt JK and Treich N. « Fair innings? The utilitarian and prioritarian value of risk reduction over a whole lifetime », 2021, Journal of Health Economics 75, 102412.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Treich, Nicolas. 2021. "Fair innings: An empirical test." AEA RCT Registry. December 14. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.8694
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
We use a survey questionnaire in which we elicit participants’ choices regarding some ethical decisions in the domain of public health. More precisely, we ask participants to consider a choice situation of the following type: “Two patients need a treatment to survive, but there is only one treatment. The patients differ only in terms of their age: one patient is 40 years old and the other is 60 years old. They both would live an extra 20 years with the treatment, and die immediately without the treatment. Which patient should receive the treatment?”. We then vary the numbers (years and duration) in the questions, and we also introduce uncertainty regarding the efficacy of the treatment and survival hances as well as changes in income and health levels.
Intervention Start Date
2021-12-20
Intervention End Date
2021-12-24

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
"Fair innings" scores
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
We plan to use two fair innings scores:
1) Proportion of questions where the respondent answers consistent with the fair innings motive
2) Fair innings intensity, namely an elicited measure of the extra years lived by the young that would be equivalent to a specific number of years lived by the old

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
A "prioritarianism" score
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
To construct a prioritarianism score, we will ask respondents how much they agree or disagree (likert scale) with a list of statements which are informative about whether the respondents display prioritarian social preferences

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We use a survey questionnaire in which we elicit participants’ choices regarding some ethical decisions in the domain of public health. More precisely, we ask participants to consider a choice situation of the following type: “Two patients need a treatment to survive, but there is only one treatment. The patients differ only in terms of their age: one patient is 40 years old and the other is 60 years old. They both would live an extra 20 years with the treatment, and die immediately without the treatment. Which patient should receive the treatment?”. We then vary the numbers (years and duration) in the questions, and we also introduce uncertainty regarding the efficacy of the treatment and survival chances as well as changes in income and health levels.
Experimental Design Details
We use a survey questionnaire in which we elicit participants’ choices regarding some ethical decisions in the domain of public health. More precisely, we ask participants to consider a choice situation of the following type: “Two patients need a treatment to survive, but there is only one treatment. The patients differ only in terms of their age: one patient is 40 years old and the other is 60 years old. They both would live an extra 20 years with the treatment, and die immediately without the treatment. Which patient should receive the treatment?”. We then vary the numbers (years and duration) in the questions, and we also introduce uncertainty regarding the efficacy of the treatment and survival chances as well as changes in income and health levels.
Randomization Method
We do not randomize participants. We randomize some questions in the questionnaire. Randomization is done by a computer.
Randomization Unit
No randomization of participants.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
N/A
Sample size: planned number of observations
N/A
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
2000 respondents
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Toulouse School of Economics Research Ethics Committee for Experimental Research
IRB Approval Date
2021-12-10
IRB Approval Number
N/A

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There are documents in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access to this information.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials