A Systematic Review of Stated Preference Studies Reporting Public Preferences for Healthcare Priority Setting

Patient

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 365-386

  Whitty, Jennifer A ^a,b   Lancsar, Emily ^c   Rixon, Kylie ^b   Golenko, Xanthe ^b   Ratcliffe, Julie ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^d FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGE; CAREGIVER; COST; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DISEASE SEVERITY; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; MEDICAL CARE; PREVALENCE; RESPONSIBILITY; REVIEW; SOCIAL STATUS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH SERVICE; LIFE EXPECTANCY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PUBLIC OPINION; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SOCIAL JUSTICE; SOCIOECONOMICS;

AGE FACTORS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; HUMANS; LIFE EXPECTANCY; PUBLIC OPINION; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SOCIAL JUSTICE; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS;

EID: 84911985164     PISSN: 11781653     EISSN: 11781661     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40271-014-0063-2     Document Type: Review

References (73)

1. Ham C. Priority setting in health care: learning from international experience. Health Policy. 1997;42(1):49–66. doi:10.1016/S0168-8510(97)00054-7.
2. Sabik LM, Lie RK. Priority setting in health care: lessons from the experiences of eight countries. Int J Equity Health. 2008;7:4. doi:10.1186/1475-9276-7-4.
3. Australian Government Productivity Commission. Impacts of advances in medical technology in Australia. Melbourne: Australian Government Productivity Commission; 2005.
4. American College of Physicians. How can our nation conserve and distribute health care resources effectively and efficiently? Philadelphia American College of Physicians; 2011.
5. Coast J, Smith R, Lorgelly P. Should the capability approach be applied in health economics? Editorial. Health Econ. 2008;17(6):667–70. doi:10.1002/hec.1359.
6. Littlejohns P, Weale A, Chalkidou K, Faden R, Teerawattananon Y. Social values and health policy: a new international research programme. J Health Org Manage. 2012;26(3):285–92.
7. Schwappach DL. Resource allocation, social values and the QALY: a review of the debate and empirical evidence. Health Expect. 2002;5(3):210–22.
8. Olsen JA, Richardson J, Dolan P, Menzel P. The moral relevance of personal characteristics in setting health care priorities. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(7):1163–72.
9. Stafinski T, Menon D, Philippon DJ, McCabe C. Health technology funding decision-making processes around the world: the same, yet different. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(6):475–95. doi:10.2165/11586420-000000000-00000.
10. Mooney G, Jan S, Wiseman V. Examining preferences for allocating health care gains. Health Care Anal. 1995;3(3):261–5.
11. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER, Russell EM, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(5):1–186.
12. Brazier J. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
13. Diener A, O’Brien B, Gafni A. Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Econ. 1998;7(4):313–26. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199806)7:4<313:AID-HEC350>3.0.CO;2-B.
14. Donaldson C, Birch S, Gafni A. The distribution problem in economic evaluation: income and the valuation of costs and consequences of health care programmes. Health Econ. 2002;11(1):55–70.
15. Olsen JA, Smith RD. Theory versus practice: a review of ‘willingness-to-pay’ in health and health care. Health Econ. 2001;10(1):39–52.
16. Birch S, Donaldson C. Valuing the benefits and costs of health care programmes: where’s the ‘extra’ in extra-welfarism? Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(5):1121–33.
17. McIntosh E, Donaldson C, Ryan M. Recent advances in the methods of cost–benefit analysis in healthcare. Matching the art to the science. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999;15(4):357–67.
18. Baker R, Bateman I, Donaldson C, Jones-Lee M, Lancsar E, Loomes G, et al. Weighting and valuing quality-adjusted life-years using stated preference methods: preliminary results from the Social Value of a QALY Project. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(27):1–162. doi:10.3310/hta14270.
19. Lancsar E, Wildman J, Donaldson C, Ryan M, Baker R. Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments. J Health Econ. 2011;30(2):466–78. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.01.003.
20. Cookson R, Drummond M, Weatherly H. Explicit incorporation of equity considerations into economic evaluation of public health interventions. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009;4(2):231–45. doi:10.1017/S1744133109004903.
21. Devlin N, Sussex J. Incorporating multiple criteria in HTA: methods and processes. London: Office of Health Economics; 2011.
22. Stafinski T, Menon D, Marshall D, Caulfield T. Societal values in the allocation of healthcare resources: is it all about the health gain? Patient. 2011;4(4):207–25. doi:10.2165/11588880-000000000-00000.
23. Shah KK. Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: a review of the literature. Health Policy. 2009;93(2–3):77–84. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.08.005.
24. Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, Williams A. QALY maximisation and people’s preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ. 2005;14(2):197–208. doi:10.1002/hec.924.
25. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;338:b2535. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535.
26. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
27. Diederich A, Swait J, Wirsik N. Citizen participation in patient prioritization policy decisions: an empirical and experimental study on patients’ characteristics. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(5):e36824. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036824.
28. Diederich A, Winkelhage J, Wirsik N. Age as a criterion for setting priorities in health care? A survey of the German public view. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(8):e23930. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023930.
29. Akkazieva B, Gulacsi L, Brandtmuller A, Pentek M, Bridges JFP. Patients’ preferences for healthcare system reforms in Hungary: a conjoint analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2006;5(3):189–98.
30. Bosworth R, Cameron TA, DeShazo JR. Is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? Comparing demand for public prevention and treatment policies. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(4):E40–56. doi:10.1177/0272989x10371681.
31. Green C, Gerard K. Exploring the social value of health-care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 2009;18(8):951–76.
32. Gyrd-Hansen D. Investigating the social value of health changes. J Health Econ. 2004;23(6):1101–16. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2004.02.002.
33. Gyrd-Hansen D, Slothuus U. The citizen’s preferences for financing public health care: a Danish survey. Int J Health Care Finance Econ. 2002;2(1):25–36.
34. Jan S, Mooney G, Ryan M, Bruggemann K, Alexander K. The use of conjoint analysis to elicit community preferences in public health research: a case study of hospital services in South Australia. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2000;24(1):64–70.
35. Lim MK, Bae EY, Choi SE, Lee EK, Lee TJ. Eliciting public preference for health-care resource allocation in South Korea. Value Health. 2012;15(1 Suppl):S91–4. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.11.014.
36. Mentzakis E, Stefanowska P, Hurley J. A discrete choice experiment investigating preferences for funding drugs used to treat orphan diseases: an exploratory study. Health Econ Policy Law. 2011;6(3):405–33.
37. Nieboer AP, Koolman X, Stolk EA. Preferences for long-term care services: willingness to pay estimates derived from a discrete choice experiment. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(9):1317–25. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.12.027.
38. Norman R, Hall J, Street D, Viney R. Efficiency and equity: a stated preference approach. Health Econ. 2012;. doi:10.1002/hec.2827.
39. Ringburg AN, Buljac M, Stolk EA, van Lieshout EMM, van Beeck EF, Patka P, et al. Willingness to pay for lives saved by helicopter emergency medical services. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2009;13(1):37–43. doi:10.1080/10903120802472004.
40. Ryynanen OP, Myllykangas M, Vaskilampi T, Takala J. Random paired scenarios—a method for investigating attitudes to prioritisation in medicine. J Med Ethics. 1996;22(4):238–42. doi:10.1136/Jme.22.4.238.
41. Scuffham PA, Whitty JA, Taylor M, Saxby RC. Health system choice: a pilot discrete-choice experiment eliciting the preferences of British and Australian citizens. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2010;8(2):89–97.
42. Watson V, Carnon A, Ryan M, Cox D. Involving the public in priority setting: a case study using discrete choice experiments. J Public Health (Oxf). 2012;34(2):253–60. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdr102.
43. Whitty JA, Scuffham PA, Rundle-Thiele SR. Public and decision maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(2):73–9. doi:10.2165/11537150-000000000-00000.
44. Bryan S, Roberts T, Heginbotham C, McCallum A. QALY-maximisation and public preferences: results from a general population survey. Health Econ. 2002;11(8):679–93.
45. Schwappach DL, Strasmann TJ. “Quick and dirty numbers”? The reliability of a stated-preference technique for the measurement of preferences for resource allocation. J Health Econ. 2006;25(3):432–48. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.08.002.
46. Schwappach DLB. Does it matter who you are or what you gain? An experimental study of preferences for resource allocation. Health Econ. 2003;12(4):255–67.
47. Ratcliffe J. Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Health Econ. 2000;9(2):137–48. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(200003)9:2<137:aid-hec489>3.3.co;2-t.
48. Louviere JJ, Flynn TN. Using best–worst scaling choice experiments to measure public perceptions and preferences for healthcare reform in Australia. Patient. 2010;3(4):275–83. doi:10.2165/11539660-000000000-00000.
49. Edlin R, Tsuchiya A, Dolan P. Public preferences for responsibility versus public preferences for reducing inequalities. Health Econ. 2012;21(12):1416–26. doi:10.1002/Hec.1799.
50. Corso PS, Hammitt JK, Graham JD, Dicker RC, Goldie SJ. Assessing preferences for prevention versus treatment using willingness to pay. Med Decis Making. 2002;22(5):S92–101. doi:10.1177/027298902237713.
51. Lindholm LA, Rosen ME, Stenbeck ME. Determinants of willingness to pay taxes for a community-based prevention programme. Scand J Soc Med. 1997;25(2):126–35.
52. Olsen JA, Donaldson C. Helicopters, hearts and hips: using willingness to pay to set priorities for public sector health care programmes. Soc Sci Med. 1998;46(1):1–12.
53. Oremus M, Tarride JE, Raina P, Thabane L, Foster G, Goldsmith CH, et al. The general public’s willingness to pay for tax increases to support unrestricted access to an Alzheimer’s disease medication. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(11):1085–95. doi:10.2165/11594180-000000000-00000.
54. Protière C, Donaldson C, Luchini S, Moatti JP, Shackley P. The impact of information on non-health attributes on willingness to pay for multiple health care programmes. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58(7):1257–69.
55. Tang CH, Liu JT, Chang CW, Chang WY. Willingness to pay for drug abuse treatment: results from a contingent valuation study in Taiwan. Health Policy. 2007;82(2):251–62. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2006.09.007.
56. Weaver M, Ndamobissi R, Kornfield R, Blewane C, Sathe A, Chapko M, et al. Willingness to pay for child survival: results of a National Survey in Central African Republic. Soc Sci Med. 1996;43(6):985–98.
57. Zarkin GA, Cates SC, Bala MV. Estimating the willingness to pay for drug abuse treatment: a pilot study. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2000;18(2):149–59.
58. Costa-Font J, Rovira J. Eliciting preferences for collectively financed health programmes: the ‘willingness to assign’ approach. Appl Econ. 2005;37(14):1571–83. doi:10.1080/00036840500181695.
59. Eisenberg D, Freed GL, Davis MM, Singer D, Prosser LA. Valuing Health at different ages: evidence from a nationally representative survey in the US. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(3):149–56. doi:10.2165/11587340-000000000-00000.
60. Nord E. The relevance of health state after treatment in prioritizing between different patients. J Med Ethics. 1993;19(1):37–42. doi:10.1136/Jme.19.1.37.
61. Nord E, Street A, Richardson J, Kuhse H, Singer P. The significance of age and duration of effect in social evaluation of health care. Health Care Anal. 1996;4(2):103–11. doi:10.1007/Bf02251210.
62. Quintal C. Aversion to geographic inequality and geographic variation in preferences in the context of healthcare. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2009;7(2):121–36. doi:10.2165/10899530-000000000-00000.
63. Richardson JR, McKie J, Peacock SJ, Iezzi A. Severity as an independent determinant of the social value of a health service. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12(2):163–74. doi:10.1007/s10198-010-0249-z.
64. Singh J, Lord J, Longworth L, Orr S, McGarry T, Sheldon R, et al. Does responsibility affect the public’s valuation of health care interventions? A relative valuation approach to health care safety. Value Health. 2012;15(5):690–8. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.005.
65. Dolan P, Tsuchiya A. It is the lifetime that matters: public preferences over maximising health and reducing inequalities in health. J Med Ethics. 2012;38(9):571–3. doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100228.
66. Whitty JA. Insensitivity to scope in contingent valuation studies: new direction for an old problem. App Health Econ Health Policy. 2012;10(6):361–3. doi:10.2165/11635250-000000000-00000.
67. de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72. doi:10.1002/hec.1697.
68. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–77.
69. Rawls J. A theory of justice. Rev ed. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 1999.
70. Scuffham PA, Whitty JA, Mitchell A, Viney R. The use of QALY weights for QALY calculations: a review of industry submissions requesting listing on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 2002–4. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(4):297–310.
71. Robinson A, Parkin D. Recognising diversity in public preferences: the use of preference sub-groups in cost-effectiveness analysis. A response to Sculpher and Gafni. Health Econ. 2002;11(7):649–51.
72. Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013.
73. Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Muhlbacher A, Regier DA, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research PracticesTask Force. Value Health. 2013;16:3–13.