Public views on principles for health care priority setting: Findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 126, Issue , 2015, Pages 128-137

  van Exel, Job ^a   Baker, Rachel ^b   Mason, Helen ^b   Donaldson, Cam ^b   Brouwer, Werner ^a  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b GLASGOW CALEDONIAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Decision making; Equity; Europe; Health care; Q methodology; QALYs; Resource allocation; Social values

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; EQUITY; FACTOR ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE; QUALITY OF LIFE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SOCIOECONOMIC INDICATOR; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS;

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; DENMARK; FRANCE; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE DISTRIBUTION; HEALTH CARE NEED; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; HUNGARY; NETHERLANDS; NORWAY; ONLINE SYSTEM; PALESTINE; POLAND; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLIC OPINION; Q METHODOLOGY; QUALITY OF LIFE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SOCIOECONOMICS; SPAIN; SWEDEN; UNITED KINGDOM; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ECONOMICS; EUROPE; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE DISPARITY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; YOUNG ADULT;

EUROPE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; DECISION MAKING; EUROPE; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HEALTHCARE DISPARITIES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PUBLIC OPINION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84920068451     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: 18735347     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.12.023     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Anand P., Wailoo A. Utilities versus rights to publicly provided goods: arguments and evidence from health care rationing. Economica 2000, 67:543-577.
2. Baker R., Bateman I., Donaldson C., 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, 14:1-162.
3. Baker R., van Exel J., Mason H., Stricklin M. Connecting Q & surveys: a test of three methods to explore factor membership in a large sample. Operant Subj. 2010, 34:38-58.
4. Baker R. Economic rationality and health and lifestyle choices for people with diabetes. Soc. Sci. Med. 2006, 63:2341-2353.
5. Baker R., Wildman J., Mason H., Donaldson C. Q-ing for health: an integrated mixed-methods approach to eliciting the public's views on health care resource allocation. Health Econ. 2014, 23:283-297.
6. Bobinac A., van Exel N.J.A., Rutten F.F.H., Brouwer W.B.F. Inquiry into the relationship between the equity weights and the value of a QALY. Value Health 2012, 15:1119-1126.
7. Boot C.R.L., van Exel N.J.A., van der Gulden J.W.J. "My lung disease won't go away, it's there to stay": profiles of adaptation to functional limitations in workers with asthma and COPD. J.Occup. Rehabilitation 2009, 19:284-292.
8. Brouwer W.B., Schut F.T. Priority care for employees: a blessing in disguise?. Health Econ. 1999, 8:65-73.
9. Brouwer W.B.F., van Exel N.J.A., Baker R., Donaldson C. The new myth: the social value of the QALY. PharmacoEconomics 2008, 26:1-4.
10. Brown S.R. Political Subjectivity. Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science 1980, Yale University Press, New Haven.
11. Brown S.R. Match made in heaven: a marginalized methodology for studying the marginalized. Qual. Quantity 2006, 40:361-382.
12. Brown S.R., Danielson S., van Exel J. Overly ambitious critics and the medici effect: a reply to Kampen and Tamás. Qual. Quant. 2014, (in press). http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11135-014-0007-x.
13. Buljac M., van Wijngaarden J.D.H., van Wijk K.P., van Exel N.J.A. Perceptions of team workers in youth care of what makes teamwork effective. Health Soc. Care Commun. 2010, 19:307-316.
14. Buxton M.J., Chambers J.D. What values do the public want their health care systems to use in evaluating technologies?. Eur. J. Health Econ. 2011, 12:285-288.
15. College voor Zorgverzekeringen Pakketbeheer in de praktijk 2006, [in Dutch]. Diemen.
16. Cramm J.M., Finkenflügel H., Møller V., van Exel N.J.A. Patient views on determinants of adherence with tuberculosis treatment in the Eastern Cape, South Africa: an application of Q-methodology. Patient Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2010, 3:159-172.
17. Cuppen E., Breukers S., Hisschemöller M., Bergsma E. Qmethodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:579-591.
18. Cuppen E. Qmethodology to support the design and evaluation of stakeholder dialogue. Operant Subj. 2013, 36:135-161.
19. Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness. BMJ 2000, 321:1300-1301.
20. De Graaf G., van Exel J. Using Q-methodology in administrative ethics. Public Integr. 2009, 11:63-78.
21. Dolan P., Shaw R., Tsuchiya A., Williams A. QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ. 2005, 14:197-208.
22. Donabedian A. Social responsibility for personal health services: an examination of basic values. Inquiry 1971, 8:3-19.
23. Donaldson C., Atkinson A., Bond J., Wright K. Should QALYs be programme specific. J.Health Econ. 1988, 7:239-257.
24. Donaldson C., Gerard K. Countering moral hazard in public and private health care systems: a review of recent evidence. J.Soc. Policy 1989, 18:235-251.
25. Donaldson C., Baker R., et al. European Value of a Quality Adjusted Life Year 2010, Final Publishable Report of the EUROVAQ project (SP5A-CT-2007-044172). Retrieved from:. http://research.ncl.ac.uk/eurovaq/.
26. Donaldson C., Baker R., Mason H., et al. The social value of a QALY: raising the bar or barring the raise?. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2011, 11:8.
27. Eccleston C., Willams A.C.D., Stainton Rogers W. Patients' and professionals' understandings of the causes of chronic pain: blame, responsibility and identity protection. Soc. Sci. Med. 1997, 45:699-709.
28. Gagnon M.P., Desmartis M., Lepage-Savary D., et al. Introducing patients' and the public's perspectives to health technology assessment: a systematic review of international experiences. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 2011, 27:31-42.
29. Gerard K., Mooney G. QALY league tables: handle with care. Health Econ. 1993, 2:59-64.
30. Goldberg L.R. Doing it all bass-ackwards: the development of hierarchical factor structures from the top down. J.Res. Person. 2006, 40:347-358.
31. Greiner W., von der Schulenburg J.M. HTA in Germany: very special and specific. Eur. J. Health Econ. 2010, 11:1-3.
32. Guttman N., Shalev C., Kaplan G., et al. What should be given a priority - costly medications for relatively few people or inexpensive ones for many? The Health Parliament public consultation initiative in Israel. Health Expect. 2008, 11:177-188.
33. Hofstede G. Insurance as a product of national values. Geneva Pap. Risk Insur. 1995, 77:423-429.
34. Klein R. Dimensions of rationing: who should do what?. BMJ 1993, 307:309-311.
35. Kline P. An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis 1994, Routledge, New York.
36. Kraijo H., Brouwer W., de Leeuw R., et al. Coping with caring: profiles of caregiving by informal carers living with a loved one who has dementia. Dementia 2012, 11:113-130.
37. Lancsar E., Wildman J., Donaldson C., et al. Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments. J.Health Econ. 2011, 30:466-478.
38. Linley W.G., Hughes D.A. Societal views on nice, cancer drugs fund and value-based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: a cross-sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great Britain. Health Econ. 2013, 22:948-964.
39. Patients, the Public and Priorities in Healthcare 2009, Radcliffe Publishing, Oxford. P. Littlejohns, M. Rawlins (Eds.).
40. Litva A., Coast J., Donovan J., et al. 'The public is too subjective': public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making. Soc. Sci. Med. 2002, 54:1825-1837.
41. Lobo V.M., Fisher A., Baumann A., Akhtar-Danesh N. Effective retention strategies for midcareer critical care nurses: a Q-method study. Nurs. Res. 2012, 61:300-308.
42. Longson C., Littlejohns P. Update Report on the Application of the 'End-of-Life' Supplementary Advice in Health Technology Appraisals 2009, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London.
43. McKeown B.F., Thomas D.B. QMethodology. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences Series 2013, vol. 66. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. second ed.
44. Menon D., Stafinski T. Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens' jury. Health Expect. 2008, 11:282-293.
45. Mooney G.H., Blackwell S.H. Whose health service is it anyway? Community values in healthcare. Med. J. Aust. 2004, 180:76-78.
46. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Appraising Life-extending, End of Life Treatments. London 2009.
47. Nord E. Concerns for the worse off: fair innings versus severity. Soc. Sci. Med. 2005, 60:257-263.
48. Pennington M., Baker R., Brouwer W., et al. Comparing WTP values of different types of QALY gain elicited from the general public. Health Econ. 2013, (in press) http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hec.3018, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hec.3018/abstract.
49. Risdon A., Eccleston G., McCracken L. How can we learn to live with pain? A Q-methodological analysis of the diverse understandings of acceptance of chronic pain. Soc. Sci. Med. 2003, 56:375-386.
50. Robinson A., Gyrd-Hansen D., Bacon P., et al. Estimating a WTP-based valueof a QALY: the 'chained' approach. Soc. Sci. Med. 2013, 92:92-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.05.013, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953613002876.
51. Schmolck P., Atkinson J. PQ Method Software and Manual 2.11 2002, Available from:. http://www.lrz.de/%7Eschmolck/qmethod.
52. Schwappach D.L.B. Resource allocation, social values and the QALY: a review of the debate and the empirical evidence. Health Expect. 2002, 5:210-222.
53. Scottish Medicines Consortium NS Guidance to the Manufacturers for Completion of New Product Assessment Form (NPAF) 2010.
54. Smith R.D., Richardson J. Can we estimate the 'social' value of a QALY?: four core issues to resolve. Health Policy 2005, 74:77-84.
55. Stenner P.H.D., Cooper D., Skevington S.M. Putting the Q-into quality of life; the identification of subjective constructions of health-related quality of life using Q-methodology. Soc. Sci. Med. 2003, 57:2161-2172.
56. Stephenson W. Correlating persons instead of tests. Character Person. 1935, 4:17-24.
57. Tielen M., van Staa A., Jedeloo S., et al. Q-methodology to identify young adult renal transplant recipients at risk for non-adherence. Transplantation 2008, 85:700-706.
58. Tsuchiya A., Dolan P. The QALY model and individual preferences for health states and health profiles over time: a systematic review of the literature. Med. Decis. Mak. 2005, 25:460-467.
59. Van de Wetering E.J., Stolk E.A., van Exel N.J., Brouwer W.B. Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall. Eur. J. Health Econ. 2013, 14:107-115.
60. Van Eeten M.J.G. Recasting intractable policy issues: the wider implications of the Netherlands civil aviation controversy. J.Policy Anal. Manag. 2001, 20:391-414.
61. Van Exel N.J.A., de Graaf G., Brouwer W.B.F. "Everyone dies, so you might as well have fun!" Attitudes of Dutch youths about their health lifestyle. Soc. Sci. Med. 2006, 63:2628-2639.
62. Vermaire J.H., Hoogstraten J., van Loveren C., et al. Attitudes toward oral health among parents of six-year-old children at risk of developing caries. Commun. Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 2010, 38:507-520.
63. Wallenburg I., van Exel N.J.A., Stolk E., et al. Between trust and accountability: different perspectives on the modernization of postgraduate medical training in the Netherlands. Acad. Med. 2010, 85:1082-1090.
64. Watts S., Stenner P. Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method and Interpretation 2012, Sage, London.
65. Weinstein M.C. AQALY is a QALY is a QALY - or is it?. J.Health Econ. 1988, 7:289-290.
66. Williams A. Ethics and efficiency in the provision of health care. R.Inst. Philos. Lect. Ser. 1988, 23:111-126.
67. Williams A. Priority setting in public and private health care. J.Health Econ. 1988, 7:173-183.
68. Williams A. Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the 'fair innings' argument. Health Econ. 1997, 6:117-132.
69. Williams A. Medicine, economics, ethics and the NHS: a clash of cultures?. Health Econ. 1998, 7:565-568.
70. Wiseman V., Mooney G., Berry G., Tang K.C. Involving the general public in priority setting: experiences from Australia. Soc. Sci. Med. 2003, 56:1001-1012.