Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2025 Feb;47(1):31-45.
doi: 10.1007/s11096-024-01846-3. Epub 2024 Dec 24.

Whether temporal discounting is domain-specific between health outcomes and money: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Tiantian Tao  1 , Junni Du  2 , Yuyang Sun  1 , Xin Li  1 , Pingyu Chen  3
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Whether temporal discounting is domain-specific between health outcomes and money: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Tiantian Tao et al. Int J Clin Pharm. 2025 Feb.

Abstract

Background: Temporal discounting, the preference for immediate over delayed rewards, affects decision-making in domains like health and finance. Understanding the differences in how people discount health outcomes compared to monetary rewards is crucial to shaping health policy and technology assessments.

Aim: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare temporal discounting parameters between health outcomes and monetary rewards and evaluate their overall relationship.

Method: Studies were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to December 2023. Standardized mean differences (SMD) assessed discounting differences between statistical indicators, and correlation coefficients were transformed into Fisher's Z scores. Subgroup analyses based on population, tradability, magnitude, sign, and experimental process explored potential heterogeneity.

Results: A total of 32 studies were included: 29 studies (47 pairs of health and money) for the comparative meta-analysis and 19 studies (32 pairs) for the correlation meta-analysis. No significant differences were found between health and money discounting, although the individuals were more patient with the health outcomes and more impulsive with the money. In the sign effect subgroup, health discounting for delayed losses was lower than for monetary losses (SMD: - 0.293; 95% CI: - 0.458, - 0.129). The pooled correlation coefficient (r) for all studies was 0.333 (95% CI: 0.283-0.383), indicating a moderate association. In subgroup analysis, when the indicator was the discount rate, the pooled r value for 16 studies was 0.278 (95% CI: 0.231, 0.325).

Conclusion: Although no significant statistical differences were found between health and money discounting, a moderate correlation was observed, supporting consistent discount rate settings for health technology assessments.

Keywords: Domain differences; Health outcomes; Meta-analysis; Money; Temporal discounting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted without commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Hardisty DJ, Weber EU. Discounting future green: money versus the environment. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2009;138(3):329–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016433 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Freeman M, Groom B, Spackman M. Social discount rates for cost-benefit analysis: a report for HM Treasury. London:HM Treasury, 2018. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fb263ca8fa8f55df1b4e54f/... . Accessed 9 Oct 2024.
    1. Hurst M. The green book: central government guidance on appraisal and evaluation. HM Treasury, London, UK: OGL Press; 2018.
    1. Attema AE, Brouwer WB, Claxton K. Discounting in economic evaluations. PharmacoEcon. 2018;36:745–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0672-z . - DOI
    1. Drupp MA, Freeman MC, Groom B, et al. Discounting disentangled. Am Econ J Econ Polic. 2018;10(4):109–34. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20160240 . - DOI

LinkOut - more resources