1
|
Peasgood T, Howell M, Raghunandan R, Salisbury A, Sellars M, Chen G, Coast J, Craig JC, Devlin NJ, Howard K, Lancsar E, Petrou S, Ratcliffe J, Viney R, Wong G, Norman R, Donaldson C. Systematic Review of the Relative Social Value of Child and Adult Health. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2024; 42:177-198. [PMID: 37945778 PMCID: PMC10811160 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-023-01327-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/09/2023] [Indexed: 11/12/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES We aimed to synthesise knowledge on the relative social value of child and adult health. METHODS Quantitative and qualitative studies that evaluated the willingness of the public to prioritise treatments for children over adults were included. A search to September 2023 was undertaken. Completeness of reporting was assessed using a checklist derived from Johnston et al. Findings were tabulated by study type (matching/person trade-off, discrete choice experiment, willingness to pay, opinion survey or qualitative). Evidence in favour of children was considered in total, by length or quality of life, methodology and respondent characteristics. RESULTS Eighty-eight studies were included; willingness to pay (n = 9), matching/person trade-off (n = 12), discrete choice experiments (n = 29), opinion surveys (n = 22) and qualitative (n = 16), with one study simultaneously included as an opinion survey. From 88 studies, 81 results could be ascertained. Across all studies irrespective of method or other characteristics, 42 findings supported prioritising children, while 12 provided evidence favouring adults in preference to children. The remainder supported equal prioritisation or found diverse or unclear views. Of those studies considering prioritisation within the under 18 years of age group, nine findings favoured older children over younger children (including for life saving interventions), six favoured younger children and five found diverse views. CONCLUSIONS The balance of evidence suggests the general public favours prioritising children over adults, but this view was not found across all studies. There are research gaps in understanding the public's views on the value of health gains to very young children and the motivation behind the public's views on the value of child relative to adult health gains. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION The review is registered at PROSPERO number: CRD42021244593. There were two amendments to the protocol: (1) some additional search terms were added to the search strategy prior to screening to ensure coverage and (2) a more formal quality assessment was added to the process at the data extraction stage. This assessment had not been identified at the protocol writing stage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tessa Peasgood
- Health Economics Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Martin Howell
- Menzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Charles Perkins Centre D17, The University of Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
| | - Rakhee Raghunandan
- Menzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Charles Perkins Centre D17, The University of Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia
| | - Amber Salisbury
- Menzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Charles Perkins Centre D17, The University of Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia
| | - Marcus Sellars
- Department of Health Services and Policy Research, Research School of Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia
| | - Gang Chen
- Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Joanna Coast
- Health Economics Bristol, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Jonathan C Craig
- College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - Nancy J Devlin
- Health Economics Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Centre for Health Policy, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Kirsten Howard
- Menzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Charles Perkins Centre D17, The University of Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia
| | - Emily Lancsar
- Department of Health Services and Policy Research, Research School of Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia
| | - Stavros Petrou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Julie Ratcliffe
- Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - Rosalie Viney
- Centre for Health Economics, Research and Evaluation (CHERE), University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Germaine Wong
- Menzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Charles Perkins Centre D17, The University of Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia
| | - Richard Norman
- School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Cam Donaldson
- Department of Health Services and Policy Research, Research School of Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia
- Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bae EY, Lim MK, Lee B, Bae G, Hong J. Public preferences in healthcare resource allocation: A discrete choice experiment in South Korea. Health Policy 2023; 138:104932. [PMID: 37924559 DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2023.104932] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2023] [Revised: 09/13/2023] [Accepted: 10/15/2023] [Indexed: 11/06/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES This study aimed to explore the public view on priority-setting criteria for healthcare resource allocation. Specifically, it investigates how the value of a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) varies depending on patient characteristics. METHODS A discrete choice experiment was conducted using an online sample of the general South Korean population. Respondents were presented with two competing treatment scenarios. The attributes of the scenarios were age at disease onset, life expectancy without treatment, life-years gain with treatment, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) without treatment, and HRQoL gains with treatment. Two hundred choice sets were generated and randomly allocated into 20 blocks. A conditional logit model was used to estimate the factors affecting the respondents' choices. RESULTS A total of 3,482 respondents completed the survey. The larger the QALY gain, the more likely it was that the scenario would be chosen but with a diminishing marginal value. Respondents prioritized 40-year-old patients over 5-year-olds and 5-year-olds over 70-year-olds and prioritized baseline HRQoL of 40% and 60% over 20%. Patients at the end of life were not preferred to those with a longer life expectancy. CONCLUSION Overall, respondents preferred health-maximizing options without explicit consideration for end-of-life patients or those with poor health. In addition, they revealed a kinked preference for patient age, prioritizing middle-aged patients over children and older people.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eun-Young Bae
- College of Pharmacy, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, Republic of Korea; Institute of Pharmacy, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, Republic of Korea.
| | - Min Kyoung Lim
- Health Insurance Research Institute, National Health Insurance Service, Wonju, Republic of Korea
| | - Boram Lee
- Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Green Bae
- College of Pharmacy, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Jihyung Hong
- Department of Healthcare Management, College of Social Science, Gachon University, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Smeele NVR, Chorus CG, Schermer MHN, de Bekker-Grob EW. Towards machine learning for moral choice analysis in health economics: A literature review and research agenda. Soc Sci Med 2023; 326:115910. [PMID: 37121066 DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115910] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2022] [Revised: 04/06/2023] [Accepted: 04/13/2023] [Indexed: 05/02/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Discrete choice models (DCMs) for moral choice analysis will likely lead to erroneous model outcomes and misguided policy recommendations, as only some characteristics of moral decision-making are considered. Machine learning (ML) is recently gaining interest in the field of discrete choice modelling. This paper explores the potential of combining DCMs and ML to study moral decision-making more accurately and better inform policy decisions in healthcare. METHODS An interdisciplinary literature search across four databases - PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Arxiv - was conducted to gather papers. Based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline, studies were screened for eligibility on inclusion criteria and extracted attributes from eligible papers. Of the 6285 articles, we included 277 studies. RESULTS DCMs have shortcomings in studying moral decision-making. Whilst the DCMs' mathematical elegance and behavioural appeal hold clear interpretations, the models do not account for the 'moral' cost and benefit in an individual's utility calculation. The literature showed that ML obtains higher predictive power, model flexibility, and ability to handle large and unstructured datasets. Combining the strengths of ML methods with DCMs has the potential for studying moral decision-making. CONCLUSIONS By providing a research agenda, this paper highlights that ML has clear potential to i) find and deepen the utility specification of DCMs, and ii) enrich the insights extracted from DCMs by considering the intrapersonal determinants of moral decision-making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicholas V R Smeele
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Erasmus Centre for Health Economics Rotterdam, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Caspar G Chorus
- Department of Engineering Systems and Services, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands; Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands
| | - Maartje H N Schermer
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Esther W de Bekker-Grob
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Erasmus Centre for Health Economics Rotterdam, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Cadham CJ, Prosser LA. Eliciting Trade-Offs Between Equity and Efficiency: A Methodological Scoping Review. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2023; 26:943-952. [PMID: 36805575 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2023.02.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/08/2022] [Revised: 01/09/2023] [Accepted: 02/12/2023] [Indexed: 06/04/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To identify differences in the approaches and results of studies that elicit equity-efficiency trade-offs that can inform equity-informative cost-effectiveness analysis for healthcare resource allocation. METHODS We searched Ovid (Medline), EconLit, and Scopus prior to June 25, 2021. Inclusion criteria were: (1) peer-reviewed or (2) gray literature; (3) published in English; (4) survey-based; (5) parameterized a social welfare function to quantify inequality aversion or (6) elicited a trade-off in equity and efficiency characteristics of health interventions. Exclusion criteria were: (1) studies that did not conduct a trade-off or (2) theoretical studies. We abstracted details on study methods, results, and limitations. Studies were grouped by following approach: (1) social welfare function or (2) preference ranking and distributional weighting. We described findings separately for each approach category. RESULTS Seventy-seven papers were included, 28 parameterized social welfare functions and 49 were classified as preference ranking and distributional weighting. Study methods were heterogeneous. Studies were conducted across 29 countries. Sample sizes and composition, survey methods and question framing varied. Preferences for equity were mixed. Across both approach categories: 39 studies were classified as clear evidence of inequality aversion; 33 found mixed evidence; and 4 had no evidence of aversion. Evidence of between and within-study heterogeneity was found. Preferences for equity may differ by gender, profession, political ideology, income, and education. CONCLUSIONS Substantial variability in study methods limit the direct comparability of findings and their use in equity-informed cost-effectiveness analysis. Future researches using representative samples that explore within and between country heterogeneity is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J Cadham
- Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
| | - Lisa A Prosser
- Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation and Research Center, Department of Pediatrics, Medical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Rotteveel AH, Lambooij MS, Over EAB, Hernández JI, Suijkerbuijk AWM, de Blaeij AT, de Wit GA, Mouter N. If you were a policymaker, which treatment would you disinvest? A participatory value evaluation on public preferences for active disinvestment of health care interventions in the Netherlands. HEALTH ECONOMICS, POLICY, AND LAW 2022; 17:428-443. [PMID: 35670359 DOI: 10.1017/s174413312200010x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Currently, it is not known what attributes of health care interventions citizens consider important in disinvestment decision-making (i.e. decisions to discontinue reimbursement). Therefore, this study aims to investigate the preferences of citizens of the Netherlands toward the relative importance of attributes of health care interventions in the context of disinvestment. METHODS A participatory value evaluation (PVE) was conducted in April and May 2020. In this PVE, 1143 Dutch citizens were asked to save at least €100 million by selecting health care interventions for disinvestment from a list of eight unlabeled health care interventions, described solely with attributes. A portfolio choice model was used to analyze participants' choices. RESULTS Participants preferred to disinvest health care interventions resulting in smaller gains in quality of life and life expectancy that are provided to older patient groups. Portfolios (i.e. combinations of health care interventions) resulting in smaller savings were preferred for disinvestment over portfolios with larger savings. CONCLUSION The disinvestment of health care interventions resulting in smaller health gains and that are targeted at older patient groups is likely to receive most public support. By incorporating this information in the selection of candidate interventions for disinvestment and the communication on disinvestment decisions, policymakers may increase public support for disinvestment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A H Rotteveel
- Centre for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands
- Julius Centre for Primary care, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Erasmus School for Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M S Lambooij
- Centre for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands
| | - E A B Over
- Centre for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands
| | - J I Hernández
- Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - A W M Suijkerbuijk
- Centre for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands
| | - A T de Blaeij
- Centre for Safety of Substances and Products, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands
| | - G A de Wit
- Centre for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands
- Julius Centre for Primary care, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - N Mouter
- Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Dieteren CM, van Hulsen MAJ, Rohde KIM, van Exel J. How should ICU beds be allocated during a crisis? Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0270996. [PMID: 35947541 PMCID: PMC9365136 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270996] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/26/2021] [Accepted: 06/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic overwhelmed healthcare systems in many countries, and the rapid spread of the virus and the acute course of the disease resulted in a shortage of intensive care unit (ICU) beds. We studied preferences of the public in the Netherlands regarding the allocation of ICU beds during a health crisis. Methods We distributed a cross-sectional online survey at the end of March 2020 to a representative sample of the adult population in the Netherlands. We collected preferences regarding the allocation of ICU beds, both in terms of who should be involved in the decision-making and which rationing criteria should be considered. We conducted Probit regression analyses to investigate associations between these preferences and several characteristics and opinions of the respondents. Results A total of 1,019 respondents returned a completed survey. The majority favored having physicians (55%) and/or expert committees (51%) play a role in the allocation of ICU beds and approximately one-fifth did not favor any of the proposed decision-makers. Respondents preferred to assign higher priority to vulnerable patients and patients who have the best prospect of full recovery. They also preferred that personal characteristics, including age, play no role. Conclusion “Our findings show that current guidelines for allocating ICU beds that include age as an independent criterion may not be consistent with societal preferences. Age may only play a role indirectly, in relation to the vulnerability of patients and their prospect of full recovery. Allocation of ICU beds during a health crisis requires a multivalue ethical framework.”
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charlotte M. Dieteren
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Erasmus Centre for Health Economics Rotterdam (EsCHER), Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- * E-mail:
| | - Merel A. J. van Hulsen
- Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Erasmus Research Institute of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Kirsten I. M. Rohde
- Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Erasmus Research Institute of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Tinbergen Institute, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Job van Exel
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Erasmus Centre for Health Economics Rotterdam (EsCHER), Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Tinbergen Institute, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Card KG, Adshade M, Hogg RS, Jollimore J, Lachowsky NJ. What public health interventions do people in Canada prefer to fund? A discrete choice experiment. BMC Public Health 2022; 22:1178. [PMID: 35698077 PMCID: PMC9189791 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-13539-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2021] [Accepted: 05/27/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective To assess public support of tailored and targeted public health interventions for marginalized communities. Methods We conducted a discrete choice experiment using a web-based survey advertised to Facebook and Instagram users living in Canada, aged > 16. Participants were asked to choose between funding two hypothetical public health programs. Each program was described by its purpose; expected increase in life expectancy; and target audience. Demographically weighted generalized linear mixed-effects models were constructed to identify program factors associated with program selection. Results Participants completed up to 8 discrete choice comparison exercises each resulting in 23,889 exercises were completed by 3054 participants. Selected programs were less likely to focus on prevention (vs. treatment). For each 1-year increase in the marginal years of life gained, there was a 15% increase in the odds of a program being selected. Interventions tailored to marginalized communities or targeting stigmatized health conditions were less likely to be selected compared to interventions targeted to the general population or targeting chronic health conditions. Noteworthy exceptions included an increased preference for interventions aligning with the perceived needs or cultural expectations for marginalized communities. Conclusions Stigmatizing perceptions of health conditions and key populations likely influence public health programming preferences of Canadians. Public health implications Informational campaigns highlighting disparities experienced by marginalized populations may improve support for targeted and tailored interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kiffer G Card
- Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada. .,School of Public Health and Social Policy, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada. .,British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, BC, Canada. .,Community-based Research Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
| | - Marina Adshade
- Vancouver School of Economics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Robert S Hogg
- Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.,British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | | | - Nathan J Lachowsky
- School of Public Health and Social Policy, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.,Community-based Research Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Quinn KL, Krahn M, Stukel TA, Grossman Y, Goldman R, Cram P, Detsky AS, Bell CM. No Time to Waste: An Appraisal of Value at the End of Life. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2022; 25:S1098-3015(22)01966-0. [PMID: 35690518 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2022.05.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/14/2021] [Revised: 04/13/2022] [Accepted: 05/02/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The use of economic evaluations of end-of-life interventions may be limited by an incomplete appreciation of how patients and society perceive value at end of life. The objective of this study was to evaluate how patients, caregivers, and society value gains in quantity of life and quality of life (QOL) at the end of life. The validity of the assumptions underlying the use of the quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) as a measure of preferences at end of life was also examined. METHODS MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PubMed were searched from inception to February 22, 2021. Original research studies reporting empirical data on healthcare priority setting at end of life were included. There was no restriction on the use of either quantitative or qualitative methods. Two reviewers independently screened, selected, and extracted data from studies. Narrative synthesis was conducted for all included studies. The primary outcomes were the value of gains in quantity of life and the value of gains in QOL at end of life. RESULTS A total of 51 studies involving 53 981 participants reported that gains in QOL were generally preferred over quantity of life at the end of life across stakeholder groups. Several violations of the underlying assumptions of the QALY to measure preferences at the end of life were observed. CONCLUSIONS Most patients, caregivers, and members of the general public prioritize gains in QOL over marginal gains in life prolongation at the end of life. These findings suggest that policy evaluations of end-of-life interventions should favor those that improve QOL. QALYs may be an inadequate measure of preferences for end-of-life care thereby limiting their use in formal economic evaluations of end-of-life interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kieran L Quinn
- Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; ICES, Toronto and Ottawa, ON, Canada; Department of Medicine, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada.
| | - Murray Krahn
- Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; ICES, Toronto and Ottawa, ON, Canada; Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Thérèse A Stukel
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; ICES, Toronto and Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Yona Grossman
- Arts and Science Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Russell Goldman
- Interdepartmental Division of Palliative Care, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada; Temmy Latner Centre for Palliative Care, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Peter Cram
- Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; ICES, Toronto and Ottawa, ON, Canada; Department of Medicine, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Allan S Detsky
- Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Department of Medicine, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Chaim M Bell
- Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; ICES, Toronto and Ottawa, ON, Canada; Department of Medicine, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Strough J, Stone ER, Parker AM, Bruine de Bruin W. Perceived Social Norms Guide Health Care Decisions for Oneself and Others: A Cross-Sectional Experiment in a US Online Panel. Med Decis Making 2022; 42:326-340. [PMID: 34961398 PMCID: PMC8923988 DOI: 10.1177/0272989x211067223] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Global aging has increased the reliance on surrogates to make health care decisions for others. We investigated the differences between making health care decisions and predicting health care decisions, self-other differences for made and predicted health care decisions, and the roles of perceived social norms, emotional closeness, empathy, age, and gender. METHODS Participants (N = 2037) from a nationally representative US panel were randomly assigned to make or to predict a health care decision. They were also randomly assigned to 1 of 5 recipients: themselves, a loved one 60 y or older, a loved one younger than 60 y, a distant acquaintance 60 y or older, or a distant acquaintance younger than 60 y. Hypothetical health care scenarios depicted choices between relatively safe lower-risk treatments with a good chance of yielding mild health improvements versus higher-risk treatments that offered a moderate chance of substantial health improvements. Participants reported their likelihood of choosing lower- versus higher-risk treatments, their perceptions of family and friends' approval of risky health care decisions, and their empathy. RESULTS We present 3 key findings. First, made decisions involved less risk taking than predicted decisions, especially for distant others. Second, predicted decisions were similar for others and oneself, but made decisions were less risk taking for others than oneself. People predicted that loved ones would be less risk taking than distant others would be. Third, perceived social norms were more strongly associated than empathy with made and predicted decisions. LIMITATIONS Hypothetical scenarios may not adequately represent emotional processes in health care decision making. CONCLUSIONS Perceived social norms may sway people to take less risk in health care decisions, especially when making decisions for others. These findings have implications for improving surrogate decision making. HIGHLIGHTS People made less risky health care decisions for others than for themselves, even though they predicted others would make decisions similar to their own. This has implications for understanding how surrogates apply the substituted judgment standard when making decisions for patients.Perceived social norms were more strongly related to decisions than treatment-recipient (relationship closeness, age) and decision-maker (age, gender, empathy) characteristics. Those who perceived that avoiding health care risks was valued by their social group were less likely to choose risky medical treatments.Understanding the power of perceived social norms in shaping surrogates' decisions may help physicians to engage surrogates in shared decision making.Knowledge of perceived social norms may facilitate the design of decision aids for surrogates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- JoNell Strough
- Department of Psychology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA
| | - Eric R Stone
- Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
| | | | - Wändi Bruine de Bruin
- Sol Price School of Public Policy, Dornsife Department of Psychology, Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, Center for Economic and Social Research, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
McMichael AJ, Kane JPM, Rolison JJ, O'Neill FA, Boeri M, Kee F. Implementation of personalised medicine policies in mental healthcare: results from a stated preference study in the UK. BJPsych Open 2022; 8:e40. [PMID: 35109949 PMCID: PMC8867892 DOI: 10.1192/bjo.2022.9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Public support for the implementation of personalised medicine policies (PMPs) within routine care is important owing to the high financial costs involved and the potential for redirection of resources from other services. AIMS We aimed to determine the attributes of a PMP most likely to elicit public support for implementation. We also aimed to determine whether such support differed between a depression PMP and one for cystic fibrosis. METHOD In a discrete-choice experiment, paired vignettes illustrating both the current model of care (CMoC) and a hypothetical PMP for either depression or cystic fibrosis were presented to a representative sample of the UK public (n = 2804). Each vignette integrated varying attributes, including anticipated therapeutic benefit over CMoC, and the annual cost to the taxpayer. Respondents were invited to express their preference for either the PMP or CMoC within each pair. RESULTS The financial cost was the most important attribute influencing public support for PMPs. Respondents favoured PMP implementation where it benefited a higher proportion of patients or was anticipated to be more effective than CMoC. A reduction in services for non-eligible patients reduced the likelihood of support for PMPs. Respondents were more willing to fund PMPs for cystic fibrosis than for depression. CONCLUSIONS Cost is a significant factor in the public's support for PMPs, but essential caveats, such as protection for services available to PMP-ineligible patients, may also apply. Further research should explore the factors contributing to condition-specific nuances in public support for PMPs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Joseph P M Kane
- PhD, Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | | | - Francis A O'Neill
- MD, Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - Marco Boeri
- PhD, Health Preference Assessment, RTI Health Solutions, and School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - Frank Kee
- MD, Centre for Public Health, and UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health Research (NI), Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Ward T, Mujica-Mota RE, Spencer AE, Medina-Lara A. Incorporating Equity Concerns in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Systematic Literature Review. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2022; 40:45-64. [PMID: 34713423 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01094-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/20/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to review analytical methods that enable the incorporation of equity concerns within economic evaluation. METHODS A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and EconLit was undertaken from database inception to February 2021. The search was designed to identify methodological approaches currently employed to evaluate health-related equity impacts in economic evaluation studies of healthcare interventions. Studies were eligible if they described or elaborated on a formal quantitative method used to integrate equity concerns within economic evaluation studies. Cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-minimisation, and cost-consequence analyses, as well as health technology appraisals, budget impact analyses, and any relevant literature reviews were included. For each of the identified methods, we provided summaries of the scope of equity considerations covered, the methods employed and their key attributes, data requirements, outcomes, and strengths and weaknesses. A traffic light assessment of the practical suitability of each method was undertaken, alongside a worked example applying the different methods to evaluate the same decision problem. Finally, the review summarises the typical trade-offs arising in cost-effectiveness analyses and discusses the extent to which the evaluation methods are able to capture these. RESULTS In total, 68 studies were included in the review. Methods could broadly be grouped into equity-based weighting (EBW) methods, extended cost-effectiveness analysis (ECEA), distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA), multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), and mathematical programming (MP). EBW and MP methods enable equity consideration through adjustment to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, whereas equity considerations are represented through financial risk protection (FRP) outcomes in ECEA, social welfare functions (SWFs) in DCEA, and scoring/ranking systems in MCDA. The review identified potential concerns for EBW methods and MCDA with respect to data availability and for EBW methods and MP with respect to explicitly measuring changes in inequality. The only potential concern for ECEA related to the use of FRP metrics, which may not be relevant for all healthcare systems. In contrast, DCEA presented no significant concerns but relies on the use of SWFs, which may be unfamiliar to some audiences and requires societal preference elicitation. Consideration of typical cost-effectiveness and equity-related trade-offs highlighted the flexibility of most methods with respect to their ability to capture such trade-offs. Notable exceptions were trade-offs between quality of life and length of life, for which we found DCEA and ECEA unsuitable, and the assessment of lost opportunity costs, for which we found only DCEA and MP to be suitable. The worked example demonstrated that each method is designed with fundamentally different analytical objectives in mind. CONCLUSIONS The review emphasises that some approaches are better suited to particular decision problems than others, that methods are subject to different practical requirements, and that significantly different conclusions can be observed depending on the choice of method and the assumptions made. Further, to fully operationalise these frameworks, there remains a need to develop consensus over the motivation for equity assessment, which should necessarily be informed with stakeholder involvement. Future research of this topic should be a priority, particularly within the context of equity evaluation in healthcare policy decisions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas Ward
- Health Economics Group, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
- College of Medicine and Health, St Luke's Campus, Heavitree Road, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK.
| | - Ruben E Mujica-Mota
- Health Economics Group, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
- Academic Unit of Health Economics, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Anne E Spencer
- Health Economics Group, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Antonieta Medina-Lara
- Health Economics Group, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Kergall P, Autin E, Guillon M, Clément V. Coverage and Pricing Recommendations of the French National Health Authority for Innovative Drugs: A Retrospective Analysis From 2014 to 2020. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2021; 24:1784-1791. [PMID: 34838276 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.06.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2020] [Revised: 06/18/2021] [Accepted: 06/28/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES This study provides a retrospective analysis of the recommendations of the French National Health Authority on the reimbursement and pricing of innovative drugs. METHODS The analysis includes drugs subjected to both economic and clinical evaluations in France from 2014 to 2020. Ordered logistic and quantile regressions are used to estimate the factors associated with the clinical value (SMR), the clinical added value (ASMR), and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of innovative drugs. All variables used in the regression analyses are extracted from the Clinical and Economic Opinions for the 146 observations. RESULTS Regression analyses indicate that 2 of the 5 official criteria, the efficacy-adverse events balance of the drug and its function, are significantly associated with the SMR rating. The ASMR is positively associated with the disease severity, the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain provided by the drug, and the validation of the ICUR in the Economic Opinion. At the first quartile of the ICUR distribution (approximately €50 000/QALY), higher ICUR levels are observed for drugs with a smaller target population and for drugs claimed as more innovative. Higher ICUR levels are also observed for pediatric drugs and for drugs with no therapeutic alternative at the third quartile of the distribution (approximately €240 000/QALY). CONCLUSIONS Not all official criteria of the SMR are associated with actual ratings obtained. Regarding the ASMR, the results support the idea of a convergence between the 2 independent clinical and economic appraisal processes. Finally, the factors influencing the ICUR level vary across the distribution of ICUR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Erwan Autin
- French National Health Authority, Saint Denis la Plaine, France
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Morrell L, Buchanan J, Rees S, Barker RW, Wordsworth S. What Aspects of Illness Influence Public Preferences for Healthcare Priority Setting? A Discrete Choice Experiment in the UK. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2021; 39:1443-1454. [PMID: 34409564 PMCID: PMC8599241 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01067-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/13/2021] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Decisions on funding new healthcare technologies assume that all health improvements are valued equally. However, public reaction to health technology assessment (HTA) decisions suggests there are health attributes that matter deeply to them but are not currently accounted for in the assessment process. We aimed to determine the relative importance of attributes of illness that influence the value placed on alleviating that illness. METHOD We conducted a discrete choice experiment survey that presented general public respondents with 15 funding decisions between hypothetical health conditions. The conditions were defined by five attributes that characterise serious illnesses, plus the health gain from treatment. Respondent preferences were modelled using conditional logistic regression and latent class analysis. RESULTS 905 members of the UK public completed the survey in November 2017. Respondents generally preferred to provide treatments for conditions with 'better' characteristics. The exception was treatment availability, where respondents preferred to provide treatments for conditions where there is no current treatment, and were prepared to accept lower overall health gain to do so. A subgroup of respondents preferred to prioritise 'worse' health states. CONCLUSION This study suggests a preference among the UK public for treating an unmet need; however, it does not suggest a preference for prioritising other distressing aspects of health conditions, such as limited life expectancy, or where patients are reliant on care. Our results are not consistent with the features currently prioritised in UK HTA processes, and the preference heterogeneity we identify presents a major challenge for developing broadly acceptable policy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Liz Morrell
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
- Oxford-UCL Centre for the Advancement of Sustainable Medical Innovation, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | - James Buchanan
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Sian Rees
- Oxford Academic Health Science Network, Oxford, UK
| | - Richard W Barker
- Oxford-UCL Centre for the Advancement of Sustainable Medical Innovation, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Sarah Wordsworth
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
van Zyl BC, Barnard MM, Cloete K, Fernandez A, Mukosi M, Pitcher RD. Towards equity: a retrospective analysis of public sector radiological resources and utilization patterns in the metropolitan and rural areas of the Western Cape Province of South Africa in 2017. BMC Health Serv Res 2021; 21:991. [PMID: 34544402 PMCID: PMC8454129 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-06997-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2020] [Accepted: 09/07/2021] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The reduction of inequality is a key United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goal (WHO, Human Resources for Health: foundation for Universal Health Coverage and the post-2015 development agenda, 2014; Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development .:. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 2020). Despite marked disparities in radiological services globally, particularly between metropolitan and rural populations in low- and middle-income countries, there has been little work on imaging resources and utilization patterns in any setting (Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development .:. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 2020; WHO, Local Production and Technology Transfer to Increase Access to Medical Devices, 2019; European Society of Radiology (ESR), Insights Imaging 6:573-7, 2015; Maboreke et al., An audit of licensed Zimbabwean radiology equipment resources as a measure of healthcare access and equity, 2020; Kabongo et al., Pan Afr Med J 22, 2015; Skedgel et al., Med Decis Making 35:94-105, 2015; Mollura et al., J Am Coll Radiol 913-9, 2014; Culp et al., J Am Coll Radiol 12:475-80, 2015; Mbewe et al., An audit of licenced Zambian diagnostic imaging equipment and personnel, 2020). To achieve equity, a better understanding of the integral components of the so called “imaging enterprise” is important. The aim was to analyse a provincial radiological service in a middle-income country. Methods An institutional review board-approved retrospective audit of radiological data for the public healthcare sector of the Western Cape Province of South Africa for 2017, utilizing provincial databases. We conducted population-based analyses of imaging equipment, personnel, and service utilization data for the whole province, the metropolitan and the rural areas. Results Metropolitan population density exceeds rural by a factor of ninety (1682 vs 19 people/km2). Rural imaging facilities by population are double the metropolitan (20 vs 11/106 people). Metropolitan imaging personnel by population (112 vs 53/106 people) and equipment unit (1.7 vs 0.7/unit) are more than double the rural. Overall population-based utilization of imaging services was 30% higher in the metropole (289 vs 214 studies/103 people), with mammography (24 vs 5 studies/103 woman > 40 years) and CT (21 vs 6/103 people) recording the highest, and plain radiography (203 vs 171/103 people) the lowest differences. Conclusion Despite attempts to achieve imaging equity through the provision of increased facilities/million people in the rural areas, differential utilization patterns persist. The achievement of equity must be seen as a process involving incremental improvements and iterative analyses that define progress towards the goal.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Beulah Christina van Zyl
- Division of Radiodiagnosis, Department of Medical Imaging and Clinical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University and Tygerberg Hospital, Francie van Zijl, Avenue, Tygerberg, Cape Town, 7505, South Africa.
| | - Michelle Monique Barnard
- Sub-Directorate Medical Imaging Services, Directorate: Health Technology, Western Cape Department of Health, 1st Floor North Block, Bellville Health Park, c/o Mike Pienaar Boulevard & Frans Conradie Drive, Bellville, Cape Town, 7500, South Africa
| | - Keith Cloete
- Department of Health, Western Cape Government, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Amanda Fernandez
- Sub-Directorate Medical Imaging Services, Directorate: Health Technology, Western Cape Department of Health, 1st Floor North Block, Bellville Health Park, c/o Mike Pienaar Boulevard & Frans Conradie Drive, Bellville, Cape Town, 7500, South Africa
| | - Matodzi Mukosi
- Department of Health, Western Cape Government, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Richard Denys Pitcher
- Division of Radiodiagnosis, Department of Medical Imaging and Clinical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University and Tygerberg Hospital, Francie van Zijl, Avenue, Tygerberg, Cape Town, 7505, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Morrell L, Buchanan J, Roope LSJ, Pouwels KB, Butler CC, Hayhoe B, Tonkin-Crine S, McLeod M, Robotham JV, Holmes A, Walker AS, Wordsworth S. Public preferences for delayed or immediate antibiotic prescriptions in UK primary care: A choice experiment. PLoS Med 2021; 18:e1003737. [PMID: 34460825 PMCID: PMC8439451 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003737] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/08/2019] [Revised: 09/14/2021] [Accepted: 07/15/2021] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Delayed (or "backup") antibiotic prescription, where the patient is given a prescription but advised to delay initiating antibiotics, has been shown to be effective in reducing antibiotic use in primary care. However, this strategy is not widely used in the United Kingdom. This study aimed to identify factors influencing preferences among the UK public for delayed prescription, and understand their relative importance, to help increase appropriate use of this prescribing option. METHODS AND FINDINGS We conducted an online choice experiment in 2 UK general population samples: adults and parents of children under 18 years. Respondents were presented with 12 scenarios in which they, or their child, might need antibiotics for a respiratory tract infection (RTI) and asked to choose either an immediate or a delayed prescription. Scenarios were described by 7 attributes. Data were collected between November 2018 and February 2019. Respondent preferences were modelled using mixed-effects logistic regression. The survey was completed by 802 adults and 801 parents (75% of those who opened the survey). The samples reflected the UK population in age, sex, ethnicity, and country of residence. The most important determinant of respondent choice was symptom severity, especially for cough-related symptoms. In the adult sample, the probability of choosing delayed prescription was 0.53 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.56, p < 0.001) for a chesty cough and runny nose compared to 0.30 (0.28 to 0.33, p < 0.001) for a chesty cough with fever, 0.47 (0.44 to 0.50, p < 0.001) for sore throat with swollen glands, and 0.37 (0.34 to 0.39, p < 0.001) for sore throat, swollen glands, and fever. Respondents were less likely to choose delayed prescription with increasing duration of illness (odds ratio (OR) 0.94 (0.92 to 0.96, p < 0.001)). Probabilities of choosing delayed prescription were similar for parents considering treatment for a child (44% of choices versus 42% for adults, p = 0.04). However, parents differed from the adult sample in showing a more marked reduction in choice of the delayed prescription with increasing duration of illness (OR 0.83 (0.80 to 0.87) versus 0.94 (0.92 to 0.96) for adults, p for heterogeneity p < 0.001) and a smaller effect of disruption of usual activities (OR 0.96 (0.95 to 0.97) versus 0.93 (0.92 to 0.94) for adults, p for heterogeneity p < 0.001). Females were more likely to choose a delayed prescription than males for minor symptoms, particularly minor cough (probability 0.62 (0.58 to 0.66, p < 0.001) for females and 0.45 (0.41 to 0.48, p < 0.001) for males). Older people, those with a good understanding of antibiotics, and those who had not used antibiotics recently showed similar patterns of preferences. Study limitations include its hypothetical nature, which may not reflect real-life behaviour; the absence of a "no prescription" option; and the possibility that study respondents may not represent the views of population groups who are typically underrepresented in online surveys. CONCLUSIONS This study found that delayed prescription appears to be an acceptable approach to reducing antibiotic consumption. Certain groups appear to be more amenable to delayed prescription, suggesting particular opportunities for increased use of this strategy. Prescribing choices for sore throat may need additional explanation to ensure patient acceptance, and parents in particular may benefit from reassurance about the usual duration of these illnesses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Liz Morrell
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
- * E-mail:
| | - James Buchanan
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Laurence S. J. Roope
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Koen B. Pouwels
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Christopher C. Butler
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Benedict Hayhoe
- Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Sarah Tonkin-Crine
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Monsey McLeod
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare-Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
- Centre for Medication Safety and Service Quality, Pharmacy Department, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
- NIHR Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Julie V. Robotham
- Modelling and Economics Unit, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom
| | - Alison Holmes
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare-Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - A. Sarah Walker
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
- Nuffield Department of Medicine, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Sarah Wordsworth
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Prospective Intention-Based Lifestyle Contracts: mHealth Technology and Responsibility in Healthcare. HEALTH CARE ANALYSIS 2021; 29:189-212. [PMID: 33428016 PMCID: PMC8321967 DOI: 10.1007/s10728-020-00424-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/10/2020] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Abstract
As the rising costs of lifestyle-related diseases place increasing strain on public healthcare systems, the individual's role in disease may be proposed as a healthcare rationing criterion. Literature thus far has largely focused on retrospective responsibility in healthcare. The concept of prospective responsibility, in the form of a lifestyle contract, warrants further investigation. The responsibilisation in healthcare debate also needs to take into account innovative developments in mobile health technology, such as wearable biometric devices and mobile apps, which may change how we hold others accountable for their lifestyles. Little is known about public attitudes towards lifestyle contracts and the use of mobile health technology to hold people responsible in the context of healthcare. This paper has two components. Firstly, it details empirical findings from a survey of 81 members of the United Kingdom general public on public attitudes towards individual responsibility and rationing healthcare, prospective and retrospective responsibility, and the acceptability of lifestyle contracts in the context of mobile health technology. Secondly, we draw on the empirical findings and propose a model of prospective intention-based lifestyle contracts, which is both more aligned with public intuitions and less ethically objectionable than more traditional, retrospective models of responsibility in healthcare.
Collapse
|
17
|
Morrell L, Buchanan J, Roope LSJ, Pouwels KB, Butler CC, Hayhoe B, Moore MV, Tonkin-Crine S, McLeod M, Robotham JV, Walker AS, Wordsworth S. Delayed Antibiotic Prescription by General Practitioners in the UK: A Stated-Choice Study. Antibiotics (Basel) 2020; 9:antibiotics9090608. [PMID: 32947965 PMCID: PMC7558347 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics9090608] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/06/2020] [Revised: 09/10/2020] [Accepted: 09/14/2020] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Delayed antibiotic prescription in primary care has been shown to reduce antibiotic consumption, without increasing risk of complications, yet is not widely used in the UK. We sought to quantify the relative importance of factors affecting the decision to give a delayed prescription, using a stated-choice survey among UK general practitioners. Respondents were asked whether they would provide a delayed or immediate prescription in fifteen hypothetical consultations, described by eight attributes. They were also asked if they would prefer not to prescribe antibiotics. The most important determinants of choice between immediate and delayed prescription were symptoms, duration of illness, and the presence of multiple comorbidities. Respondents were more likely to choose a delayed prescription if the patient preferred not to have antibiotics, but consultation length had little effect. When given the option, respondents chose not to prescribe antibiotics in 51% of cases, with delayed prescription chosen in 21%. Clinical features remained important. Patient preference did not affect the decision to give no antibiotics. We suggest that broader dissemination of the clinical evidence supporting use of delayed prescription for specific presentations may help increase appropriate use. Establishing patient preferences regarding antibiotics may help to overcome concerns about patient acceptance. Increasing consultation length appears unlikely to affect the use of delayed prescription.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Liz Morrell
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK; (J.B.); (L.S.J.R.); (K.B.P.); (S.W.)
- Correspondence:
| | - James Buchanan
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK; (J.B.); (L.S.J.R.); (K.B.P.); (S.W.)
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK; (C.C.B.); (S.T.-C.); (A.S.W.)
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK
| | - Laurence S. J. Roope
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK; (J.B.); (L.S.J.R.); (K.B.P.); (S.W.)
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK; (C.C.B.); (S.T.-C.); (A.S.W.)
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK
| | - Koen B. Pouwels
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK; (J.B.); (L.S.J.R.); (K.B.P.); (S.W.)
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK; (C.C.B.); (S.T.-C.); (A.S.W.)
| | - Christopher C. Butler
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK; (C.C.B.); (S.T.-C.); (A.S.W.)
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK
| | - Benedict Hayhoe
- Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London W2 1PG, UK;
| | - Michael V. Moore
- Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK;
| | - Sarah Tonkin-Crine
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK; (C.C.B.); (S.T.-C.); (A.S.W.)
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK
| | - Monsey McLeod
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare-Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK;
- Centre for Medication Safety and Service Quality, Pharmacy Department, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London W2 1NY, UK
- NIHR Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK
| | - Julie V. Robotham
- Modelling and Economics Unit, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London SE1 8UG, UK;
| | - A. Sarah Walker
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK; (C.C.B.); (S.T.-C.); (A.S.W.)
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK
- Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7BN, UK
| | - Sarah Wordsworth
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK; (J.B.); (L.S.J.R.); (K.B.P.); (S.W.)
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK; (C.C.B.); (S.T.-C.); (A.S.W.)
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Chorus C, Sandorf ED, Mouter N. Diabolical dilemmas of COVID-19: An empirical study into Dutch society's trade-offs between health impacts and other effects of the lockdown. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0238683. [PMID: 32936815 PMCID: PMC7494093 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238683] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2020] [Accepted: 08/21/2020] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
We report and interpret preferences of a sample of the Dutch adult population for different strategies to end the so-called 'intelligent lockdown' which their government had put in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a discrete choice experiment, we invited participants to make a series of choices between policy scenarios aimed at relaxing the lockdown, which were specified not in terms of their nature (e.g. whether or not to allow schools to re-open) but in terms of their effects along seven dimensions. These included health-related effects, but also impacts on the economy, education, and personal income. From the observed choices, we were able to infer the implicit trade-offs made by the Dutch between these policy effects. For example, we find that the average citizen, in order to avoid one fatality directly or indirectly related to COVID-19, is willing to accept a lasting lag in the educational performance of 18 children, or a lasting (>3 years) and substantial (>15%) reduction in net income of 77 households. We explore heterogeneity across individuals in terms of these trade-offs by means of latent class analysis. Our results suggest that most citizens are willing to trade-off health-related and other effects of the lockdown, implying a consequentialist ethical perspective. Somewhat surprisingly, we find that the elderly, known to be at relatively high risk of being affected by the virus, are relatively reluctant to sacrifice economic pain and educational disadvantages for the younger generation, to avoid fatalities. We also identify a so-called taboo trade-off aversion amongst a substantial share of our sample, being an aversion to accept morally problematic policies that simultaneously imply higher fatality numbers and lower taxes. We explain various ways in which our results can be of value to policy makers in the context of the COVID-19 and future pandemics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caspar Chorus
- Department of Engineering Systems and Services, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands
| | - Erlend Dancke Sandorf
- Economics Division, Stirling Management School, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland
| | - Niek Mouter
- Department of Engineering Systems and Services, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Nicolet A, van Asselt ADI, Vermeulen KM, Krabbe PFM. Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0235666. [PMID: 32645035 PMCID: PMC7347112 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235666] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2019] [Accepted: 06/21/2020] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In many countries, medical interventions are reimbursed on the basis of recommendations made by advisory boards and committees that apply multiple criteria in their assessment procedures. Given the diversity of these criteria, it is difficult to find common ground to determine what information is required for setting priorities. OBJECTIVE To investigate whether society and patients share the same interests and views concerning healthcare priorities. METHODS We applied a framework of discrete choice models in which respondents were presented with judgmental tasks to elicit their preferences. They were asked to choose between two hypothetical scenarios of patients receiving a new treatment. The scenarios graphically presented treatment outcomes and patient characteristics. Responses were collected through an online survey administered among respondents from the general population (N = 1,253) and patients (N = 1,389) and were analyzed using conditional logit and mixed logit models. RESULTS The respondents' preferences regarding new medical treatments revealed that they attached the most relative importance to additional survival years, age at treatment, initial health condition, and the cause of disease. Minor differences in the relative importance assigned to three criteria: age at treatment, initial health, and cause of disease were found between the general population and patient samples. Health scenarios in which patients had higher initial health-related quality of life (i.e., a lower burden of disease) were favored over those in which patients' initial health-related quality of life was lower. CONCLUSIONS Overall, respondents within the general population expressed preferences that were similar to those of the patients. Therefore, priority-setting studies that are based on the perspectives of the general population may be useful for informing decisions on reimbursement and other types of priority-setting processes in health care. Incorporating the preferences of the general population may simultaneously increase public acceptance of these decisions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Nicolet
- Department of Epidemiology and Health Systems, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (Unisanté), Lausanne, Switzerland
- * E-mail:
| | - Antoinette D. I. van Asselt
- Department of Epidemiology and Health Systems, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (Unisanté), Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Karin M. Vermeulen
- Department of Epidemiology and Health Systems, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (Unisanté), Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Paul F. M. Krabbe
- Department of Epidemiology and Health Systems, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (Unisanté), Lausanne, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Lancsar E, Gu Y, Gyrd-Hansen D, Butler J, Ratcliffe J, Bulfone L, Donaldson C. The relative value of different QALY types. JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS 2020; 70:102303. [PMID: 32061405 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2020.102303] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/24/2018] [Revised: 01/26/2020] [Accepted: 01/29/2020] [Indexed: 05/19/2023]
Abstract
The oft-applied assumption in the use of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) in economic evaluation, that all QALYs are valued equally, has been questioned from the outset. The literature has focused on differential values of a QALY based on equity considerations such as the characteristics of the beneficiaries of the QALYs. However, a key characteristic which may affect the value of a QALY is the type of QALY itself. QALY gains can be generated purely by gains in survival, purely by improvements in quality of life, or by changes in both. Using a discrete choice experiment and a new methodological approach to the derivation of relative weights, we undertake the first direct and systematic exploration of the relative weight accorded different QALY types and do so in the presence of equity considerations; age and severity. Results provide new evidence against the normative starting point that all QALYs are valued equally.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily Lancsar
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, Research School of Population Health, Australian National University, Australia.
| | - Yuanyuan Gu
- Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie University, Australia
| | - Dorte Gyrd-Hansen
- Centre of Health Economics Research, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark
| | - Jim Butler
- Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, Australia
| | - Julie Ratcliffe
- Health and Social Care Economics Group, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Australia
| | | | - Cam Donaldson
- Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Exploring the relative value of end of life QALYs: Are the comparators important? Soc Sci Med 2020; 245:112660. [DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112660] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2019] [Revised: 10/30/2019] [Accepted: 11/01/2019] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
|
22
|
Krucien N, Heidenreich S, Gafni A, Pelletier-Fleury N. Measuring public preferences in France for potential consequences stemming from re-allocation of healthcare resources. Soc Sci Med 2019; 246:112775. [PMID: 31923838 DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112775] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2019] [Revised: 12/16/2019] [Accepted: 12/20/2019] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
When deciding which new programme to implement and where the additional resources, if needed, will come from, the decision makers need to accommodate the uncertainty of the potential changes in population health and medical expenditures that can occur. They also need to determine the value of these potential changes. The objective of this study is to identify a public valuation function measuring how the public values changes in population health and medical expenditures when healthcare resources are re-allocated. We report the results of a choice experiment conducted in March 2016 in a representative sample of the population living in France (N = 1008). The main results indicate that the public is more sensitive to changes in population health than changes in the level of medical expenditures. There is a non-linear valuation of these changes with evidence of asymmetric preferences and non-constant marginal sensitivity. The public gives 1.4 times more weight to decrease in population health than for the same-size increase. The public becomes less sensitive to marginal changes in population health as the level of changes increases. In a simulation study of 5000 resource allocation decisions, we show that non-linearities in public valuation of population health and medical expenditures matters. The linear and non-linear public valuation functions were associated with respectively 50.1% and 28.1% of situations of acceptable outcome of the reallocation of resources. The level of agreement between these two functions was moderate with a Kappa coefficient of 0.56, and the probability of agreement was mainly driven by the distribution of net changes in population health. This study provides a method and an estimation of a public valuation function that describes the preferences (or values attributed) for every potential outcome stemming from the reallocation of healthcare resources. The results show the importance of measuring such function rather than assuming one.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicolas Krucien
- Patient-Centered Research, Evidera Ltd, London, United Kingdom.
| | | | - Amiram Gafni
- Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Nathalie Pelletier-Fleury
- Centre de Recherche en Epidemiologie et Santé des Populations, Université Paris-Sud, UVSQ, INSERM, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Kostick KM, Halm A, O'Brien K, Kothari S, Blumenthal-Barby JS. Conceptualizations of consciousness and continuation of care among family members and health professionals caring for patients in a minimally conscious state. Disabil Rehabil 2019; 43:2285-2294. [PMID: 34315308 DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2019.1697383] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The American Academy of Neurology recently emphasized the importance of communicating with patients' families to better reflect patient values in clinical care. However, little is known about how decisions about continuing rehabilitative care made by family caregivers and healthcare providers working with minimally conscious patients are informed by conceptualizations of consciousness and moral status. METHODS We explored these issues in interviews with 18 family caregivers and 20 healthcare professionals caring for minimally conscious patients. Data were analyzed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS Results suggest that family members and healthcare professionals share similar views of what consciousness is ("being there") and what it is indicated by ("a look in the eyes," and/or an "ability to do"/agency). They also share a belief that the presence (or "level") of consciousness does not determine whether rehabilitative care should be discontinued. Rather, it should be determined by considerations of suffering and well-being. Providers were more likely to view suffering as rationale for discontinuation of care, while family members viewed suffering as an indicator of and motivator for potential recovery. CONCLUSION Findings can help optimize family-provider communications about minimally conscious patients by acknowledging shared assumptions and interpretations of consciousness, as well as key areas where perspectives diverge.Implications for rehabilitationFamily and professional caregivers' interpretations of consciousness and suffering are implicated in decisions about continuing rehabilitation for minimally conscious patients.Family members and healthcare providers both rely to some extent on non-observable evidence to evaluate consciousness, which may be an adaptive and philanthropic response to clinical uncertainty.Acknowledging shared assumptions and interpretations of consciousness, as well as diverging perspectives, can help to optimize family-provider communications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristin M Kostick
- Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Abby Halm
- Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Katherine O'Brien
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.,TIRR Memorial Hermann Research Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Sunil Kothari
- TIRR Memorial Hermann Research Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Disentangling public preferences for health gains at end-of-life: Further evidence of no support of an end-of-life premium. Soc Sci Med 2019; 236:112375. [DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112375] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/14/2018] [Revised: 05/24/2019] [Accepted: 06/17/2019] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
|
25
|
Santoro L, Lessa F, Nardi EP, Ferraz MB. Stakeholder value judgments in decision-making on the incorporation, financing, and allocation of new health technologies in limited-resource settings: a potential Brazilian approach. Rev Panam Salud Publica 2019; 42:e102. [PMID: 31093130 PMCID: PMC6386094 DOI: 10.26633/rpsp.2018.102] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/13/2016] [Accepted: 11/28/2017] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective To analyze the value judgments behind cost-benefit tradeoffs made by health stakeholders in deciding whether or not to incorporate new health technologies and how they should be financed and allocated in limited-resource settings in Brazil. Method From June 2009 to January 2010, a sample of stakeholders in the public and private health sector was identified and invited to complete an online survey consisting of two questionnaires: one collecting socio-demographic/professional information and one capturing resource allocation preferences in four hypothetical scenarios for the incorporation of new health technologies. Results A total of 193 respondents completed the survey; more than half were male (53.9%) and the most common age group was 31-40 years (36.8%). Scenario 1 (incorporation of a new drug treatment for chronic disease, by reducing/eliminating resources for existing programs) was rejected by 49.2% of the survey sample, who preferred to maintain the status quo for existing programs. Scenario 2 (incorporation of the same new treatment, but financed by a new tax) was rejected by 58.0%. Scenario 3 (incorporation of a new treatment for a highly lethal disease, by age group-20-75 years versus 75+ years-by reducing/eliminating resources for existing programs), was rejected by 42.0%, while 20.7% supported allocations for both groups, 34.2% supported allocations exclusively for the 20-75-year age group, and 3.1% supported allocations exclusively for the 75+ year age group. For Scenario 4, which consisted of five different resource allocations for prevention and treatment programs for another highly lethal disease, the most preferred option (chosen by 50.8% of respondents) was 75%:25% (prevention versus treatment). Conclusions When incorporating a new health technology requires reducing/eliminating other health programs, financing it through a tax, or having to choose certain age groups (e.g., younger, working people versus older people), respondents are likely to reject it. When offered the choice of limiting the scope of the program (e.g., prevention versus treatment), respondents are likely to favor prevention. This was the first study in Brazil to capture value judgments that affect stakeholder decision-making on various resource allocations for different scenarios for health technology introduction in limited-resource settings. Future research should investigate the perspective of society as a whole to determine the best approach for decision-making based on common values and consensus within a particular health care system.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luiz Santoro
- Department of Health Informatics, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
| | - Fernanda Lessa
- Department of Health Informatics, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
| | | | - Marcos Bosi Ferraz
- Department of Health Informatics, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Krucien N, Pelletier-Fleury N, Gafni A. Measuring Public Preferences for Health Outcomes and Expenditures in a Context of Healthcare Resource Re-Allocation. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2019; 37:407-417. [PMID: 30499065 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0751-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The final outcome of any resource allocation decision in healthcare cannot be determined in advance. Thus, decision makers, in deciding which new program to implement (or not), need to accommodate the uncertainty of different potential outcomes (i.e., change in both health and costs) that can occur, the size and nature (i.e., 'bad' or 'good') of these outcomes, and how they are being valued. Using the decision-making plane, which explicitly incorporates opportunity costs and relaxes the assumptions of perfect divisibility and constant returns to scale of the cost-effectiveness plane, all the potential outcomes of each resource allocation decision can be described. OBJECTIVE In this study, we describe the development and testing of an instrument, using a discrete choice experiment methodology, allowing the measurement of public preferences for potential outcomes falling in different quadrants of the decision-making plane. METHOD In a sample of 200 participants providing 4200 observations, we compared four versions of the preference-elicitation instrument using a range of indicators. RESULTS We identified one version that was well accepted by the participants and with good measurement properties. CONCLUSION This validated instrument can now be used in a larger representative sample to study the preferences of the public for potential outcomes stemming from re-allocation of healthcare resources.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicolas Krucien
- Health Economics Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB25 2QN, Scotland, UK.
| | - Nathalie Pelletier-Fleury
- Centre de Recherche en Epidémiologie et Santé des Populations, Université Paris-Sud, UVSQ, INSERM, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France
| | - Amiram Gafni
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evaluation and Impact, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, Vass CM. Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2019; 37:201-226. [PMID: 30392040 PMCID: PMC6386055 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 359] [Impact Index Per Article: 71.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly advocated as a way to quantify preferences for health. However, increasing support does not necessarily result in increasing quality. Although specific reviews have been conducted in certain contexts, there exists no recent description of the general state of the science of health-related DCEs. The aim of this paper was to update prior reviews (1990-2012), to identify all health-related DCEs and to provide a description of trends, current practice and future challenges. METHODS A systematic literature review was conducted to identify health-related empirical DCEs published between 2013 and 2017. The search strategy and data extraction replicated prior reviews to allow the reporting of trends, although additional extraction fields were incorporated. RESULTS Of the 7877 abstracts generated, 301 studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent data extraction. In general, the total number of DCEs per year continued to increase, with broader areas of application and increased geographic scope. Studies reported using more sophisticated designs (e.g. D-efficient) with associated software (e.g. Ngene). The trend towards using more sophisticated econometric models also continued. However, many studies presented sophisticated methods with insufficient detail. Qualitative research methods continued to be a popular approach for identifying attributes and levels. CONCLUSIONS The use of empirical DCEs in health economics continues to grow. However, inadequate reporting of methodological details inhibits quality assessment. This may reduce decision-makers' confidence in results and their ability to act on the findings. How and when to integrate health-related DCE outcomes into decision-making remains an important area for future research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vikas Soekhai
- Section of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM), Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR), P.O. Box 1738, Rotterdam, 3000 DR The Netherlands
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam, 3000 CA The Netherlands
| | - Esther W. de Bekker-Grob
- Section of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM), Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR), P.O. Box 1738, Rotterdam, 3000 DR The Netherlands
| | - Alan R. Ellis
- Department of Social Work, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC USA
| | - Caroline M. Vass
- Manchester Centre for Health Economics, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Tervonen T, Schmidt-Ott T, Marsh K, Bridges JFP, Quaife M, Janssen E. Assessing Rationality in Discrete Choice Experiments in Health: An Investigation into the Use of Dominance Tests. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2018; 21:1192-1197. [PMID: 30314620 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.04.1822] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2018] [Revised: 03/19/2018] [Accepted: 04/11/2018] [Indexed: 05/28/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Dominance tests are often applied to test for the rationality in the choice behavior of participants in discrete choice experiments (DCEs). OBJECTIVES To examine how dominance tests have been implemented in recent DCE applications in health and discuss their theoretical and empirical interpretation. METHODS Health-related DCEs published in 2015 were reviewed for the inclusion of tests on choice behavior. For studies that implemented a dominance test, information on application and interpretation of the test was extracted. Authors were contacted for test choice sets and observed proportions of subjects who chose the dominated option. Coefficients corresponding to the choice set were extracted to estimate the expected probability of choosing the dominated option with a logistic model and compared with the observed proportion. The theoretical range of expected probabilities of possible dominance tests was calculated. RESULTS Of 112 health-related DCEs, 49% included at least one test for choice behavior; 28 studies (25%) included a dominance test. The proportion of subjects in each study who chose the dominated option ranged from 0% to 21%. In 46% of the studies, the dominance test led to the exclusion of participants. In the 15 choice sets that were analyzed, 2 had larger proportions of participants choosing the dominated option than expected (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Although dominance tests are frequently applied in DCEs, there is no consensus on how to account for them in data analysis and interpretation. Comparison of expected and observed proportions of participants failing the test might be indicative of DCE quality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Tabea Schmidt-Ott
- Evidera, London, UK; Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | | | - John F P Bridges
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Matthew Quaife
- Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Ellen Janssen
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Fischer B, Telser H, Zweifel P. End-of-life healthcare expenditure: Testing economic explanations using a discrete choice experiment. JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS 2018; 60:30-38. [PMID: 29906764 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2018.06.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2017] [Revised: 02/21/2018] [Accepted: 06/01/2018] [Indexed: 06/08/2023]
Abstract
Healthcare expenditure (HCE) spent during an individual's last year of life accounts for a high share of lifetime HCE. This finding is puzzling because an investment in health is unlikely to have a sufficiently long payback period. However, Becker et al. (2007) and Philipson et al. (2010) have advanced a theory designed to explain high willingness to pay (WTP) for an extension of life close to its end. Their testable implications are complemented by the concept of 'pain of risk bearing' introduced by Eeckhoudt and Schlesinger (2006). They are tested using a discrete choice experiment performed in 2014, involving 1,529 Swiss adults. An individual setting where the price attribute is substantial out-of-pocket payment for a novel drug for treatment of terminal cancer is distinguished from a societal one, where it is an increase in contributions to social health insurance. Most of the economic predictions receive empirical support.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Barbara Fischer
- Polynomics AG, Olten, Switzerland; University of Zurich, Switzerland.
| | - Harry Telser
- Polynomics AG, Olten, Switzerland; University of Lucerne, Switzerland.
| | | |
Collapse
|
30
|
Valuing health at the end of life: A review of stated preference studies in the social sciences literature. Soc Sci Med 2018; 204:39-50. [DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.03.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2017] [Revised: 02/26/2018] [Accepted: 03/05/2018] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
|
31
|
Round J, Paulden M. Incorporating equity in economic evaluations: a multi-attribute equity state approach. THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS : HEPAC : HEALTH ECONOMICS IN PREVENTION AND CARE 2018; 19:489-498. [PMID: 28573333 PMCID: PMC5913380 DOI: 10.1007/s10198-017-0897-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/25/2016] [Accepted: 05/11/2017] [Indexed: 05/29/2023]
Abstract
In publicly funded health care systems, decision makers must continually balance often conflicting priorities of efficiency and equity. Health economists have developed a set of highly sophisticated analytical methods for assessing efficiency, but less attention has been paid to formally incorporating equity considerations into analyses. As a result, where equity is considered is often informal, ad hoc and/or simplistic. This paper is a proposal for a mechanism for formally incorporating equity within the decision process. It begins with an overview of the current literature on equity weighting. It then considers the case of a single equity domain and illustrates how this is currently applied in practice by the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. It then proposes a more comprehensive method for considering the multi-attribute equity state, where a population exhibits more than one trait considered worthy of differential weighting. Finally, the paper proposes a mechanism by which this could be applied in practice, and concludes with a discussion of the challenges for applying multi-attribute equity weighting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeff Round
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
| | - Mike Paulden
- School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Zhou M, Thayer WM, Bridges JFP. Using Latent Class Analysis to Model Preference Heterogeneity in Health: A Systematic Review. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2018; 36:175-187. [PMID: 28975582 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0575-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 77] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Latent class analysis (LCA) has been increasingly used to explore preference heterogeneity, but the literature has not been systematically explored and hence best practices are not understood. OBJECTIVE We sought to document all applications of LCA in the stated-preference literature in health and to inform future studies by identifying current norms in published applications. METHODS We conducted a systematic review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, Web of Science, and PsycINFO databases. We included stated-preference studies that used LCA to explore preference heterogeneity in healthcare or public health. Two co-authors independently evaluated titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. Abstracted key outcomes included segmentation methods, preference elicitation methods, number of attributes and levels, sample size, model selection criteria, number of classes reported, and hypotheses tests. Study data quality and validity were assessed with the Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, and Significance (PREFS) quality checklist. RESULTS We identified 2560 titles, 99 of which met the inclusion criteria for the review. Two-thirds of the studies focused on the preferences of patients and the general population. In total, 80% of the studies used discrete choice experiments. Studies used between three and 20 attributes, most commonly four to six. Sample size in LCAs ranged from 47 to 2068, with one-third between 100 and 300. Over 90% of the studies used latent class logit models for segmentation. Bayesian information criterion (BIC), Akaike information criterion (AIC), and log-likelihood (LL) were commonly used for model selection, and class size and interpretability were also considered in some studies. About 80% of studies reported two to three classes. The number of classes reported was not correlated with any study characteristics or study population characteristics (p > 0.05). Only 30% of the studies reported using statistical tests to detect significant variations in preferences between classes. Less than half of the studies reported that individual characteristics were included in the segmentation models, and 30% reported that post-estimation analyses were conducted to examine class characteristics. While a higher percentage of studies discussed clinical implications of the segmentation results, an increasing number of studies proposed policy recommendations based on segmentation results since 2010. CONCLUSIONS LCA is increasingly used to study preference heterogeneity in health and support decision-making. However, there is little consensus on best practices as its application in health is relatively new. With an increasing demand to study preference heterogeneity, guidance is needed to improve the quality of applications of segmentation methods in health to support policy development and clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mo Zhou
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Room 690, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
| | - Winter Maxwell Thayer
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Room 690, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA
| | - John F P Bridges
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Room 690, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
McHugh N, van Exel J, Mason H, Godwin J, Collins M, Donaldson C, Baker R. Are life-extending treatments for terminal illnesses a special case? Exploring choices and societal viewpoints. Soc Sci Med 2018; 198:61-69. [PMID: 29276987 PMCID: PMC5884317 DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/19/2017] [Revised: 12/12/2017] [Accepted: 12/15/2017] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
Abstract
Criteria used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to assess life-extending, end-of-life (EoL) treatments imply that health gains from such treatments are valued more than other health gains. Despite claims that the policy is supported by societal values, evidence from preference elicitation studies is mixed and in-depth research has shown there are different societal viewpoints. Few studies elicit preferences for policies directly or combine different approaches to understand preferences. Survey questions were designed to investigate support for NICE EoL guidance at national and regional levels. These 'Decision Rule' and 'Treatment Choice' questions were administered to an online sample of 1496 UK respondents in May 2014. The same respondents answered questions designed to elicit their agreement with three viewpoints (previously identified and described) in relation to provision of EoL treatments for terminally ill patients. We report the findings of these choice questions and examine how they relate to each other and respondents' viewpoints. The Decision Rule questions described three policies: DA - a standard 'value for money' test, applied to all health technologies; DB - giving special consideration to all treatments for terminal illnesses; and DC - giving special consideration to specific categories of treatments for terminal illnesses e.g. life extension (as in NICE EoL guidance) or those that improve quality-of-life (QoL). Three Treatment Choices were presented: TA - improving QoL for patients with a non-terminal illness; TB - extending life for EoL patients; and TC - improving QoL at the EoL. DC received most support (45%) with most respondents giving special consideration to EoL only when treatments improved QoL. The most commonly preferred treatment choices were TA (51%) and TC (43%). Overall, this study challenges claims about public support for NICE's EoL guidance and the focus on life extension at EoL and substantiates existing evidence of plurality in societal values.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neil McHugh
- Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, United Kingdom.
| | - Job van Exel
- Institute of Health Policy & Management and Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Helen Mason
- Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, United Kingdom
| | - Jon Godwin
- Institutes for Applied Health Research and Society & Social Justice Research, School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, United Kingdom
| | - Marissa Collins
- Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, United Kingdom
| | - Cam Donaldson
- Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, United Kingdom
| | - Rachel Baker
- Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Gyrd-Hansen D. Is there additional value attached to health gains at the end of life? A revisit. HEALTH ECONOMICS 2018; 27:e71-e75. [PMID: 28568843 DOI: 10.1002/hec.3534] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2016] [Revised: 02/17/2017] [Accepted: 05/03/2017] [Indexed: 05/19/2023]
Abstract
Researchers have in recent years sought to establish whether the general public value treatment at the end of life (EOL) more highly than other treatments. Results are mixed, with social preferences most often exhibiting lack of preferences for EOL treatments. This null result may be driven by the often applied study design, where respondents are to choose between treatments targeting patients with varying fixed life expectancies. When remaining life is certain and salient, a rule-of-rescue sentiment may drive preferences across all scenarios. This study presents a different design, where the comparator is a preventive intervention. We study preferences from both an individual and social perspective and find no preference for an EOL premium.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dorte Gyrd-Hansen
- Department of Business and Economics & Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
- Department of Community Medicine, University of Tromsø, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Morrell L, Ii SS, Wordsworth S, Wilson R, Rees S, Barker R. Cancer as the "perfect storm"? A qualitative study of public attitudes to health conditions. Health Sci Rep 2017; 1:e16. [PMID: 30024988 PMCID: PMC6034427 DOI: 10.1002/hsr2.16] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2017] [Revised: 09/14/2017] [Accepted: 09/15/2017] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
Aims Our aim is to identify important attributes of major diseases that shape how they are perceived by the public. Methods and Results Four focus groups among members of the public were recruited, in March and October 2016, and used semistructured discussion to explore important attributes of cancer, heart disease, stroke, dementia, mental illness, and infectious disease. Common themes were identified by using inductive thematic analysis.Five themes were identified: fear, impact on family and friends, hope, detection, and prevention. Fear of cancer includes not only fear of death but also of aggressive treatments. Loss of dignity is feared in dementia, while infectious disease raises fear of uncontrollable "plague"; in contrast, people with mental illness may themselves be seen as a potential threat. The impact of cancer and its treatment on family and friends was described as intense and all-consuming, even for those not involved directly in caring; with dementia and stroke, the family impact is taking on care, including funding, over the long term with little expectation of improvement. Hope is a major theme in cancer and stroke recovery, linked with the need to take action, often expressed in aggressive language of "fighting," but seen as futile in dementia. Detection difficulties for "silent" cancers mean that real treatment opportunities are missed; cardiovascular and infection risk, however, are seen as easy to identify and act on, whereas mental illness and dementia are seen as poorly diagnosed and with limited treatment options. Prevention awareness is high for cardiovascular disease and infection, lower for cancer, and limited for dementia and mental health. Conclusion Although themes overlap across diseases, the specific concerns are different and each condition has a unique profile. Quantifying the relative importance of these themes could allow their incorporation in decision-making, not only when they occur as a named disease but also in any relevant condition.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Liz Morrell
- Oxford-UCL Centre for the Advancement of Sustainable Medical Innovation (CASMI), Radcliffe Department of Medicine University of Oxford Oxford UK
| | - Suzanne Sayuri Ii
- Oxford-UCL Centre for the Advancement of Sustainable Medical Innovation (CASMI), Radcliffe Department of Medicine University of Oxford Oxford UK
| | - Sarah Wordsworth
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health University of Oxford Oxford UK.,Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre University of Oxford Oxford UK
| | - Roger Wilson
- National Cancer Research Institute Consumer Forum London UK
| | - Sian Rees
- Health Experiences Institute, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences University of Oxford Oxford UK
| | - Richard Barker
- Oxford-UCL Centre for the Advancement of Sustainable Medical Innovation (CASMI), Radcliffe Department of Medicine University of Oxford Oxford UK
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Morrell L, Wordsworth S, Rees S, Barker R. Does the Public Prefer Health Gain for Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review of Public Views on Cancer and its Characteristics. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2017; 35:793-804. [PMID: 28455834 PMCID: PMC5548817 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0511-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/11/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Policies such as the Cancer Drugs Fund in England assumed a societal preference to fund cancer care relative to other conditions, even if that resulted in lower health gain for the population overall. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to investigate the evidence for such a preference among the UK public. METHODS The MEDLINE, PubMed and Econlit electronic databases were searched for studies relating to preferences for prioritising cancer treatment, as well as studies relating to preferences for the characteristics of cancer (severity of disease, end-of-life). The searches were run in November 2015 and updated in March 2017. Empirical preference studies, studies of public views, and studies in English were included. RESULTS We identified 24 studies relating to cancer preferences. Two directly addressed health trade-offs in the UK-one showed a preference for health gain in cancer, while the other found no such preference but provided results consistent with population health maximisation. Other studies mostly showed support for cancer but did not require a direct health trade-off. Severity and end-of-life searches identified 12 and 6 papers, respectively, which were additional to existing reviews. There is consistent evidence that people give priority to severe illness, while results for end-of-life are mixed. CONCLUSION We did not find consistent support for a preference for health gains to cancer patients in the context of health maximisation. The evidence base is small and the results are highly sensitive to study design. There remains a contradiction between these findings and the popular view of cancer, and further work is required to determine the features of cancer which contribute to that view.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Liz Morrell
- Centre for the Advancement of Sustainable Medical Innovation (CASMI), University of Oxford, Room 4403, Level 4, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headley Way, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK.
| | - Sarah Wordsworth
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Sian Rees
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Health Experiences Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Richard Barker
- Centre for the Advancement of Sustainable Medical Innovation (CASMI), University of Oxford, Room 4403, Level 4, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headley Way, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Stakeholder views on criteria and processes for priority setting in Norway: a qualitative study. Health Policy 2017; 121:683-690. [DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.04.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/15/2016] [Revised: 03/12/2017] [Accepted: 04/04/2017] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
|
38
|
|
39
|
van de Wetering EJ, van Exel J, Brouwer WBF. The Challenge of Conditional Reimbursement: Stopping Reimbursement Can Be More Difficult Than Not Starting in the First Place! VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2017; 20:118-125. [PMID: 28212952 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.09.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2016] [Revised: 06/29/2016] [Accepted: 09/01/2016] [Indexed: 06/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Conditional reimbursement of new health technologies is increasingly considered as a useful policy instrument. It allows gathering more robust evidence regarding effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new technologies without delaying market access. Nevertheless, the literature suggests that ending reimbursement and provision of a technology when it proves not to be effective or cost-effective in practice may be difficult. OBJECTIVES To investigate how policymakers and the general public in the Netherlands value removing a previously reimbursed treatment from the basic benefits package relative to not including a new treatment. METHODS To investigate this issue, we used discrete-choice experiments. Mixed multinomial logit models were used to analyze the data. Compensating variation values and changes in probability of acceptance were calculated for withdrawal of reimbursement. RESULTS The results show that, ceteris paribus, both the general public (n = 1169) and policymakers (n = 90) prefer a treatment that is presently reimbursed over one that is presently not yet reimbursed. CONCLUSIONS Apparently, ending reimbursement is more difficult than not starting reimbursement in the first place, both for policymakers and for the public. Loss aversion is one of the possible explanations for this result. Policymakers in health care need to be aware of this effect before engaging in conditional reimbursement schemes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E J van de Wetering
- Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Job van Exel
- Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Werner B F Brouwer
- Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Skedgel C. The prioritization preferences of pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review members and the Canadian public: a stated-preferences comparison. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2016; 23:322-328. [PMID: 27803596 DOI: 10.3747/co.23.3033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
The pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pcodr) is responsible for making coverage recommendations to provincial and territorial drug plans about cancer drugs. Within the pcodr process, small groups of experts (including public representatives) consider the characteristics of each drug and make a funding recommendation. It is important to understand how the values and preferences of those decision-makers compare with the values and preferences of the citizens on whose behalf they are acting. In the present study, stated preference methods were used to elicit prioritization preferences from a representative sample of the Canadian public and a small convenience sample of pcodr committee members. The results suggested that neither group sought strictly to maximize quality-adjusted life year (qaly) gains and that they were willing to sacrifice some efficiency to prioritize particular patient characteristics. Both groups had a significant aversion to prioritizing older patients, patients in good pre-treatment health, and patients in poor post-treatment health. Those results are reassuring, in that they suggest that pcodr decision-maker preferences are consistent with those of the Canadian public, but they also imply that, like the larger public, decision-makers might value health gains to some patients more or less highly than the same gains to others. The implicit nature of pcodr decision criteria means that the acceptability or limits of such differential valuations are unclear. Likewise, there is no guidance as to which potential equity factors-for example, age, initial severity, and so on-are legitimate and which are not. More explicit guidance could improve the consistency and transparency of pcodr recommendations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C Skedgel
- Health Economics Group, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K.;; School of Pharmacy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Ngoya PS, Muhogora WE, Pitcher RD. Defining the diagnostic divide: an analysis of registered radiological equipment resources in a low-income African country. Pan Afr Med J 2016; 25:99. [PMID: 28292062 PMCID: PMC5325496 DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2016.25.99.9736] [Citation(s) in RCA: 62] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/28/2016] [Accepted: 07/21/2016] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Diagnostic radiology is recognised as a key component of modern healthcare. However there is marked inequality in global access to imaging. Rural populations of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have the greatest need. Carefully coordinated healthcare planning is required to meet the ever increasing global demand for imaging and to ensure equitable access to services. However, meaningful planning requires robust data. Currently, there are no comprehensive published data on radiological equipment resources in low-income countries. The aim of this study was to conduct the first detailed analysis of registered diagnostic radiology equipment resources in a low-income African country and compare findings with recently published South African data. METHODS The study was conducted in Tanzania in September 2014, in collaboration with the Tanzanian Atomic Energy Commission (TAEC), which maintains a comprehensive database of the country's registered diagnostic imaging equipment. All TAEC equipment data were quantified as units per million people by imaging modality, geographical zone and healthcare sector. RESULTS There are 5.7 general radiography units per million people in the public sector with a relatively homogeneous geographical distribution. When compared with the South African public sector, Tanzanian resources are 3-, 21- and 6-times lower in general radiography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, respectively. CONCLUSION The homogeneous Tanzanian distribution of basic public-sector radiological services reflects central government's commitment to equitable distribution of essential resources. However, the 5.7 general radiography units per million people is lower than the 20 units per million people recommended by the World Health Organization.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patrick Sitati Ngoya
- Division of Radiodiagnosis, Department of Medical Imaging and Clinical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University and Tygerberg Academic Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa
| | | | - Richard Denys Pitcher
- Division of Radiodiagnosis, Department of Medical Imaging and Clinical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University and Tygerberg Academic Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
van de Wetering L, van Exel J, Bobinac A, Brouwer WBF. Valuing QALYs in Relation to Equity Considerations Using a Discrete Choice Experiment. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2015; 33:1289-300. [PMID: 26232199 PMCID: PMC4661217 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-015-0311-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/19/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND To judge whether an intervention offers value for money, the incremental costs per gained quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) need to be compared with some relevant threshold, which ideally reflects the monetary value of health gains. Literature suggests that this value may depend on the equity context in which health gains are produced, but the value of a QALY in relation to equity considerations has remained largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to estimate the social marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) for QALY gains in different equity subgroups, using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Both severity of illness (operationalized as proportional shortfall) and fair innings (operationalized as age) were considered as grounds for differentiating the value of health gains. METHODS We obtained a sample of 1205 respondents, representative of the adult population of the Netherlands. The data was analysed using panel mixed multinomial logit (MMNL) and latent class models. RESULTS The panel MMNL models showed counterintuitive results, with more severe health states reducing the probability of receiving treatment. The latent class models revealed distinct preference patterns in the data. MWTP per QALY was sensitive to severity of disease among a substantial proportion of the public, but not to the age of care recipients. CONCLUSION These findings emphasize the importance of accounting for preference heterogeneity among the public on value-laden issues such as prioritizing health care, both in research and decision making. This study emphasises the need to further explore the monetary value of a QALY in relation to equity considerations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Liesbet van de Wetering
- Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Job van Exel
- Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ana Bobinac
- Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Werner B F Brouwer
- Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
|