Can a moral reasoning exercise improve response quality to surveys of healthcare priorities?

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 57-64

  Johri, Mira ^a   Damschroder, L J ^b   Zikmund Fisher, B J ^c   Kim, S Y H ^c   Ubel, P A ^c  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^b VA ANN ARBOR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; CANADA; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; EPIDEMIOLOGY; ETHICS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HUMAN; INTERNET; MALE; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; CANADA; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 58149267681     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: 14734257     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2008.024810     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR), Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF). Listening for Direction III: A National Consultation on Health Services and Policy Issues (2007). 2007. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/20461.html (accessed 23 October 2008).
2. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Social value judgments: Principles for the Development of NICE Guidance. NICE 2008. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/CI8/30/SVJPublication2008.pdf (accessed 27 October 2008).
3. Department of Health. Our health, our care, our say: a new direction for community services. London; Department of Health, 2006:1-236. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/publicationsandstatistics/publications/ publicationspolicyandguidance/dh_4127453 (accessed 27 October 2008).
4. Williams A. Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the 'fair innings' argument. Health Econ 1997;6:117-32.
5. Tsuchiya A. QALYs and ageism: philosophical theories and age weighting. Health Econ 2000;9:57-68.
6. Lewis PA, Charny M. Which of two individuals do you treat when only their ages are different and you can't treat both? J Med Ethics 1989;15:28-34.
7. Busschbach JJ, Hessing DJ, de Charro FT. The utility of health at different stages in life: a quantitative approach. Soc Sci Med 1993;37:153-8.
8. Cropper ML, Ayede SK, Portney PR. Preferences for life-saving programs: How the public discounts time and age. J Risk Uncertain 1994;8:243-65.
9. Johannesson M, Johansson PO. Is the valuation of a QALY gained independent of age? Some empirical evidence. J Health Econ 1997;16:589-99.
10. Rodriguez E, Pinto JL. The social value of health programmes: is age a relevant factor? Health Econ 2000;9:611-21.
11. Ratcliffe J. Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Health Econ 2000;9:137-48.
12. Tsuchiya A, Dolan P, Shaw R. Measuring people's preferences regarding ageism in health: some methodological issues and some fresh evidence. Soc Sci Med 2003;57:687-96.
13. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). NICE Citizens Council Report on Age. NICE, 2004. http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=101368 (accessed 23 October 2008).
14. Cookson R, Dolan P. Public views on health care rationing: a group discussion study. Health Policy 1999;49:63-74.
15. Dolan P, Cookson R, Ferguson B. Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public's views of priority setting in health care: focus group study. BMJ 1999;318:916-19.
16. Palmore E. The ageism survey: first findings. Gerontologist 2001;41:572-5.
17. Rathore SS, Mehta RH, Wang Y, et al. Effects of age on the quality of care provided to older patients with acute myocardial infarction. Am J Med 2003;114:307-15.
18. Alter DA, Manuel DG, Gunraj N, et al. Age, risk-benefit trade-offs, and the projected effects of evidence-based therapies. Am J Med 2004;116:540-5.
19. Krumholz HM, Radford MJ, Wang Y, et al. Early beta-blocker therapy for acute myocardial infarction in elderly patients. Ann Intern Med 1999;131:648-54.
20. Soumerai SB, McLaughlin TJ, Spiegelman D, et al. Adverse outcomes of underuse of beta-blockers in elderly survivors of acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 1997;277:115-21.
21. Ubel PA. How stable are people's preferences for giving priority to severely ill patients? Soc Sci Med 1999;49:895-903.
22. Ubel PA, Baron J, Asch DA. Social responsibility, personal responsibility, and prognosis in public judgments about transplant allocation. Bioethics 1999;13:57-68.
23. Johri M, Damschroder LJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, et al. The importance of age in allocating health care resources: does intervention-type matter? Health Econ 2005;14:669-78.
24. Fearon JD. Deliberation as discussion. In: Elster J, ed. Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998:44-68.
25. Abelson J, Forest PG, Eyles J, et al. Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med 2003;57:239-51.
26. Abelson J, Eyles J, McLeod CB, et al. Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting. Health Policy 2003;66:95-106.
27. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Citizens Council Meeting Report on Inequalities in Health. NICE 2006:1-32. http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=384319 (accessed 23 October 2008).
28. Dolan P. Drawing a veil over the measurement of social welfare - a reply to Johannesson. J Health Econ 1999;18:387-90.
29. Survey Sampling International (SSI). http://www.surveysampling.com (accessed 27 October 2008).
30. Damschroder LJ, Baron J, Jepson C, et al. The validity of person tradeoff with computer elicitation versus face-to-face interview. Med Decis Making 2004;24:170-80.
31. Damschroder LJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. The impact of considering adaptation in health state valuation. Soc Sci Med 2005;61:267-77.
32. Damschroder LJ, Ubel PA, Riis J, et al. An alternative approach for eliciting willingness-to-pay: A randomized Internet trial. Judgment and Decision Making 2007;22:96-106.
33. Richardson HS. Moral Reasoning. In: Zalta EN, ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. California: Stanford University, 2007. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2007/entries/reasoning-moral (accessed 23 October 2008)
34. Tsuchiya A. Age-related preferences and age weighting health benefits. Soc Sci Med 1999;48:267-76.
35. Nord E, Street A, Richardson J, et al. The significance of age and duration of effect in social evaluation of health care. Health Care Anal 1996;4:103-11.
36. Nord E, Richardson J, Street A, et al. Maximizing health benefits vs egalitarianism: an Australian survey of health issues. Soc Sci Med 1995;41:1429-37.
37. Couper MP. Internet Surveys. In: Lewis-Beck M, Bryman AE, Liao TF, eds. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 2003.
38. Consort Group. The Consort (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement. http://www.consort-statement.org/index.aspx?o=1089 (accessed 23 October 2008).
39. Eisenberg D, Freed GL. Reassessing how society prioritizes the health of young people. Health Aff (Millwood) 2007;26:345-54.
40. Damschroder LJ, Roberts TR, Goldstein CC, et al. Trading people versus trading time: what is the difference? Popul Health Metr 2005;3:10.