Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation

Health Economics

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 137-148

  Ratcliffe, Julie ^a  

^a BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Conjoint analysis; Graft allocation; Liver transplantation; Public preferences

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SURVIVAL TIME;

EMPIRICAL APPROACH; HEALTH CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH;

GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HUMANS; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; PATIENT SELECTION; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRES; SOCIAL JUSTICE; STATE MEDICINE; TISSUE AND ORGAN PROCUREMENT;

EID: 0034061408     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(200003)9:2<137::AID-HEC489>3.0.CO;2-1     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Neuberger, J. Allocating donor livers: should be given to patients most likely to benefit irrespective of the cause. British Medical Journal 1997; 314: 1140-1141.
2. United Kingdom Transplant Support Services Authority. Audit of liver transplantation in the UK, UKTSSA Bristol, 1997.
3. Neuberger, J., Adams, D., McMaster, P. et al. Assessing priorities for allocation of donor liver grafts: survey of public and clinicians. British Medical Journal 1998; 317: 172-175.
4. Ghent, C.N. Overall evaluation: screening and assessment of risk factors. Liver Transplantation and Surgery 1996; 2: 2-8.
5. Ubel, P. and Loewenstein, G. The efficacy and equity of retransplantation: an experimental survey of public attitudes. Health Policy 1995; 34: 145-151.
6. Ubel, P. and Loewenstein, G. Distributing scarce livers: the moral reasoning of the general public. Social Science and Medicine 1996; 42: 1049-1055.
7. Peters, T.G. Organ donors and non-donors. Archives of Internal Medicine 1996; 156: 2419-2424.
8. Olsen, J.A. Theories of justice and their implications for priority setting in health care. Journal of Health Economics 1997; 16: 625-640.
9. Wagstaff, A. QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade off. Journal of Health Economics 1991; 10: 21-41.
10. Eddy, D.M. The individual versus society, resolving the conflict. Journal of the American Medical Association 1991; 265: 2399-2406.
11. Hadorn, D.C. The role of public values in setting health care priorities. Social Science and Medicine 1991; 52: 773-781.
12. Nord, E. Unqualified use of the Quality of Well Being Scale in priority setting in Oregon. Health Policy 1993; 24: 43-53.
13. Nord, E., Richardson, J. and Macarounas, K. Social evaluation of health care versus personal evaluation of health states. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1995; 9: 463-478.
14. Nord, E., Richardson, J., Street, A., Kuhse, H. and Singer, P. Maximising health benefits versus egalitarianism: an Australian survey of health issues. Social Science and Medicine 1995; 41: 1429-1437.
15. Mooney, G., Jan, S. and Wiseman V. Eliciting preferences for allocating health gains. Health Care Analysis 1995; 3: 1381-1385.
16. Ryan, M. and Hughes, J. Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. Health Economics 1997; 6: 261-272.
17. Van der Pol, M. and Cairns, J. Establishing patient preferences for blood transfusion support: an application of conjoint analysis. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 1997; 3: 70-76.
18. Scott, A., Watson, W., Ross, S. and Torrance, N. Eliciting patients preferences for different models of out of hours care. HERU Discussion Paper No 04/98, University of Aberdeen, 1998.
19. Ratcliffe, J. and Buxton, M. Patient's preferences regarding the process and outcomes of life saving technology: an application of conjoint analysis to liver transplantation. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1999; 15: 340-351.
20. Roberts, T., Bryan, S., Heginbotham, C. and McCallum, A. Public involvement in health care priority setting: an economic perspective. Health Expectations (forthcoming).
21. Ryan, M. Economics and the patient's utility function: an application to assisted reproductive techniques. University of Aberdeen, PhD Thesis, 1996.
22. Cave, M., Burningham, D., Buxton, M. et al. The valuation of changes in the quality of public services. Brunei University, Uxbridge, 1993.
23. HERG Interim Data. Economic evaluation of the liver transplantation programme in England and Wales. Uxbridge: HERG, Brunel University, 1998.
24. Howard, L. and Fahy, T. Liver transplants for alcoholic liver disease. British Journal of Psychiatry 1997; 171: 497-500
25. Moss, H. and Siegler, M. Should alcoholic compete equally for liver transplantation. Journal of the American Medical Association 1991; 265: 1295-1298.
26. Wright, S.J. Age, sex and health: a summary of findings from the York health evaluation survey. CHE Discussion Paper 15, University of York, 1986.
27. Charney, M.C., Lewis, P.A. and Farrow, S.C. Choosing who shall not be treated in the NHS. Social Science and Medicine 1989, 28: 1331-1338
28. Busschbach, J.J.V., Hessing, D.J. and De Charro, F.T. The utility of health at different stages in life: a quantitative approach. Social Science and Medicine 1993; 37: 153-158.
29. Bjork, S. and Rosen, P. Setting health care priorities in Sweden: the politician's point of view. Health Policy 1993; 26: 141-154.
30. Nord, E., Richardson, J., Street, A. et al. The significance of age and duration of effect in social evaluation of health care. National Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Working Paper No. 47, Monash University, Melbourne, 1995.
31. Ubel, P.A., Arnold, R.M. and Caplan, A.L. Rationing failure: the ethical lessons of the retransplantation of scarce vital organs. Journal of the American Medical Association 1993; 270: 2469-2474.
32. Bradley, M. Users manual for the speed version 2.1 stated preference editor and designer. Hague: Hague Consulting Group, 1991.
33. Hausman, J.A. Specification tests in Econometrics. Econometrica 1978; 46: 1251-1271
34. Scott, A. Giving things up to have more of others. The implications of limited substitutability for eliciting preferences in health and health care. HERU Discussion Paper No 01/98, University of Aberdeen, 1998.
35. Drakapoulus, S.A. Hierarchical choice in economics. Journal of Economic Surveys 1994; 8: 133-153.
36. Nord, E. The person trade off approach to valuing health care programs. Medical Decision Making 1995; 15: 210-208.