C. Charles, A. Gafni, and T. Whelan, Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean?(or it takes at least two to tango), Soc Sci Med, vol.44, issue.5, pp.681-92

P. Dolan, The measurement of health-related quality of life for use in resource allocation decisions in health care, Culyer AJ, pp.1723-60, 2000.

D. Rowen, B. Mulhern, S. Banerjee, R. Tait, C. Watchurst et al., Comparison of General Population, Patient, and Carer Utility Values for Dementia Health States, Med Decis Mak, vol.35, issue.1, pp.68-80

A. Z. Fu, K. D. Graves, R. E. Jensen, J. L. Marshall, M. Formoso et al., Patient preference and decision-making for initiating metastatic colorectal cancer medical treatment, J Cancer Res Clin Oncol, vol.142, issue.3, pp.699-706

M. Jo, M. Ock, and S. Y. Lim, Estimating Utilities for Liver Diseases Using Standard Gamble Method. Value Heal, vol.19, p.838

M. Versteegh, K. Vermeulen, S. Evers, G. A. De-wit, R. Prenger et al., Dutch Tariff for the Five-Level Version of EQ-5D, Value Heal, vol.19, issue.4, pp.343-52

N. J. Devlin, K. K. Shah, Y. Feng, B. Mulhern, and B. Van-hout, Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5D-5L value set for England, Health Econ, vol.27, issue.1, pp.7-22

F. Xie, E. Pullenayegum, K. Gaebel, N. Bansback, S. Bryan et al., A Time Tradeoff-derived Value Set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada, Med Care, vol.54, issue.1, pp.98-105

S. Kim, J. Ahn, M. Ock, S. Shin, J. Park et al., The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Korea, Qual Life Res, vol.25, issue.7, pp.1845-52

S. Kim, S. Lee, and M. Jo, Feasibility, comparability, and reliability of the standard gamble compared with the rating scale and time trade-off techniques in Korean population, Qual Life Res, vol.26, issue.12, pp.3387-97

J. Brazier, A. R. Rowen, D. Chevrou-severac, and H. , A Review of Generic Preference-Based Measures for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Models, Pharmacoeconomics, vol.35, issue.1, pp.21-31

S. P. Mckenna, J. Ratcliffe, D. M. Meads, and J. E. Brazier, Development and validation of a preference based measure derived from the Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR) for use in cost utility analyses, Health Qual Life Outcomes, vol.6, issue.1, p.65

G. D. Sanders, P. J. Neumann, A. Basu, D. W. Brock, D. Feeny et al., Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine, Jama, vol.316, issue.10, pp.1093-103

D. Makarov, M. Holmes-rovner, D. R. Rovner, T. Averch, M. J. Barry et al.,

, American Urological Association and Society for Medical Decision Making Quality Improvement Summit 2016: Shared Decision Making and Prostate Cancer Screening

U. Pract,

L. A. Shay and J. E. Lafata, Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes, Med Decis Mak, vol.35, issue.1, pp.114-145

M. Oppe, K. Rand-hendriksen, K. Shah, J. M. Ramos-goñi, and N. Luo, EuroQol Protocols for Time Trade-Off Valuation of Health Outcomes, Pharmacoeconomics, vol.34, issue.10, pp.993-1004

H. Bleichrodt and M. Johannesson, Standard gamble, time trade-off and rating scale: Experimental results on the ranking properties of QALYs, J Health Econ, vol.16, issue.2, pp.155-75

J. L. Read, R. J. Quinn, D. M. Berwick, H. Fineberg, and M. C. Weinstein, Preferences for health outcomes. Comparison of assessment methods, Med Decis Mak, vol.4, issue.3, pp.315-344

D. L. Sackett and G. W. Torrance, The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public, J Chronic Dis, vol.31, pp.697-704

H. Bleichrodt, A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities, Health Econ, vol.456, pp.447-56

P. Wakker and D. Deneffe, Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern Utilities When Probabilities Are Distorted or Unknown, Manage Sci, vol.42, issue.8, pp.1131-50

J. M. Abellán-perpinán, J. L. Pinto, I. Méndez-martinez, and X. Badia-llach, Towards a better QALY model, Health Econ, vol.15, issue.7, pp.665-76

S. A. Lipman, W. Brouwer, and A. E. Attema, QALYs without bias? Non-parametric correction of time trade-off and standard gamble utilities based on prospect theory

, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 2017.

M. Abdellaoui, L. 'haridon, O. Paraschiv, and C. , Do couples discount future consequences less than individuals?, Univ Rennes, vol.1, pp.2013-2033

L. Denant-boèmont, E. Diecidue, L. 'haridon, and O. , Patience and time consistency in collective decisions, Exp Econ, vol.20, issue.1, pp.181-208

M. Brunette, L. Cabantous, and S. Couture, Are individuals more risk and ambiguity averse in a group environment or alone? Results from an experimental study, Theory Decis, vol.78, issue.3, pp.357-76
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01189933

C. Deck, J. Lee, J. Reyes, and C. Rosen, Risk-Taking Behavior: An Experimental Analysis of Individuals and Dyads, South Econ J, vol.79, issue.2, pp.277-99

R. S. Shupp and A. W. Williams, Risk preference differentials of small groups and individuals, Econ J, vol.118, issue.525, pp.258-83

A. Ambrus, B. Greiner, P. Pathak, and . Others, Group versus individual decision-making: Is there a shift, Sch Soc Sci Econ Work Pap, vol.91

J. Zhang and M. Casari, How groups reach agreement in risky choices: an experiment, Econ Inq, vol.50, issue.2, pp.502-517

S. Keck, E. Diecidue, and D. Budescu, Group decisions under ambiguity: Convergence to neutrality, J Econ Behav Organ, vol.103, pp.60-71

L. R. Keller, R. K. Sarin, and J. Sounderpandian, An examination of ambiguity aversion: Are two heads better than one?, Judgm Decis Mak, vol.2, pp.390-397

M. Abdellaoui, L. 'haridon, O. Paraschiv, and C. , Individual vs. couple behavior: an experimental investigation of risk preferences, Theory Decis, vol.75, issue.2, pp.175-91
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00801311

J. Bone, J. Hey, and J. Suckling, Are groups more (or less) consistent than individuals?, J Risk Uncertain, vol.18, issue.1, pp.63-81

B. Rockenbach, A. Sadrieh, and B. Mathauschek, Teams take the better risks, J Econ Behav Organ, vol.63, issue.3, pp.412-434

I. L. Janis, Victims of groupthink: a psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes, 1972.

J. K. Esser, Alive and Well after 25 Years: A Review of Groupthink Research, Organ Behav Hum Decis Process, vol.2, issue.73, pp.116-157

J. S. Pliskin, D. Shepard, and M. C. Weinstein, Utility functions for life years and health status, Oper Res, vol.28, issue.1, pp.206-230

K. Rohde, Measuring Decreasing and Increasing Impatience, Manage Sci

J. Ameriks, A. Caplin, J. Leahy, and T. Tyler, Measuring self-control problems, Am Econ Rev, vol.97, issue.3, pp.966-72

M. Herdman, C. Gudex, A. Lloyd, M. F. Janssen, P. Kind et al., Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L), Qual life Res, vol.20, issue.10, pp.1727-1763

P. Dolan, Aggregating health state valuations, J Health Serv Res Policy, vol.2, issue.3, pp.160-165

A. E. Attema and W. Brouwer, The correction of TTO-scores for utility curvature using a riskfree utility elicitation method, J Health Econ, vol.28, issue.1, pp.234-277

M. Oppe, N. J. Devlin, B. Van-hout, P. Krabbe, and F. De-charro, A Program of Methodological Research to Arrive at the New International EQ-5D-5L Valuation Protocol. Value Heal, effect : IDM: I1 vs. I2 | CDM: I1 vs G, vol.17, pp.445-53

:. Note, *. , and *. Represent, If we repeat these analyses (I1 vs I2) for CDM, we find a significant decrease (Morgan-Pittman tests, all p's < 0.034) in variance, with the exception of the most severe health state Q3 for both SG and TTO