Attributes and weights in health care priority setting: A systematic review of what counts and to what extent

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 146, Issue , 2015, Pages 41-52

  Gu, Yuanyuan ^a   Lancsar, Emily ^a   Ghijben, Peter ^a   Butler, James R G ^b   Donaldson, Cam ^c  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c GLASGOW CALEDONIAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

DCE; Distributional weights; Health care priority setting; PTO; Relative weights; Stated preferences; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE; PUBLIC HEALTH; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS; WEIGHT;

DECISION MAKING; DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT; DISEASE SEVERITY; DISTRIBUTIONAL WEIGHT; EMPLOYMENT STATUS; FAMILY; GENDER; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE CONCEPTS; HEALTH CARE PRIORITY SETTING; HEALTH GAIN ATTRIBUTE; HUMAN; INDIGENOUS PEOPLE; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MARRIAGE; PERSON TRADE OFF; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUANTITATIVE STUDY; RELATIVE WEIGHT; REVIEW; SOCIAL STATUS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; PROCEDURES; PUBLIC OPINION; RESOURCE ALLOCATION;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HUMANS; LIFE EXPECTANCY; PUBLIC OPINION; RESOURCE ALLOCATION;

EID: 84945156196     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: 18735347     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.10.005     Document Type: Review

References (81)

1. Abásolo I., Tsuchiya A. Exploring social welfare functions and violation of monotonicity: an example from inequalities in health. J. Health Econ. 2004, 23:313-329.
2. Abásolo I., Tsuchiya A. Is more health always better for society? Exploring public preferences that violate monotonicity. Theory Decis. 2013, 74:539-563.
3. Arrow K.J., Sen A., Suzumura K. Handbook of Social Choice & Welfare 2010, Elsevier.
4. 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, 14:1-162.
5. Bleichrodt H., Doctor J., Stolk E. A nonparametric elicitation of the equity-efficiency trade-off in cost-utility analysis. J. Health Econ. 2005, 24:655-678.
6. Bosworth R., Cameron T.A., DeShazo J.R. Is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? Comparing demand for public prevention and treatment policies. Med. Decis. Mak. 2010, 30:E40-E56.
7. Bryan S., Roberts T., Heginbotham C., McCallum A. QALY-maximisation and public preferences: results from a general population survey. Health Econ. 2002, 11:679-693.
8. Canadian Agency for Drugs Technologies in Health Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada. In Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies 2006, CADTH, Canada.
9. Charny M.C., Lewis P.A., Farrow S.C. Choosing who shall not be treated in the nhs. Soc. Sci. Med. 1989, 28:1331-1338.
10. Clement F.M., Harris A., Li J.J., Yong K., Lee K.M., Manns B.J. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA 2009, 302:1437-1443.
11. Corso P.S., Hammitt J.K., Graham J.D., Dicker R.C., Goldie S.J. Assessing preferences for prevention versus treatment using willingness to pay. Med. Decis. Mak. 2002, 22:S92-S101.
12. Cropper M.L., Aydede S.K., Portney P.R. Preferences for life saving programs: how the public discounts time and age. J. Risk Uncertain. 1994, 8:243-265.
13. Devlin N., Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ. 2004, 13:437-452.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Dolan P., Olsen J.A., Menzel P., Richardson J. An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health. Health Econ. 2003, 12:545-551.
17. Dolan P., Shaw R. A note on the relative importance that people attach to different factors when setting priorities in health care. Health Expect. 2003, 6:53-59.
18. 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.
19. Dolan P., Tsuchiya A. The social welfare function and individual responsibility: some theoretical issues and empirical evidence. J. Health Econ. 2009, 28:210-220.
20. Dolan P., Tsuchiya A. Health priorities and public preferences: the relative importance of past health experience and future health prospects. J. Health Econ. 2005, 24:703-714.
21. Dolan P., Tsuchiya A. It is the lifetime that matters: public preferences over maximising health and reducing inequalities in health. J. Med. Ethics 2012, 38:571-573.
22. Dolan P., Tsuchiya A. Determining the parameters in a social welfare function using stated preference data: an application to health. Appl. Econ. 2011, 43:2241-2250.
23. Drummond M. Twenty years of using economic evaluations for drug reimbursement decisions: what has been achieved?. J. Health Polit. Policy Law 2013, 38:1081-1102.
24. Edlin R., Tsuchiya A., Dolan P. Public preferences for responsibility versus public preferences for reducing inequalities. Health Econ. 2012, 21:1416-1426.
25. Eisenberg D., Freed G.L., Davis M.M., Singer D., Prosser L.A. Valuing health at different ages: evidence from a nationally representative survey in the US. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2011, 9:149-156.
26. Green C. Investigating public preferences on 'severity of health' as a relevant condition for setting healthcare priorities. Soc. Sci. Med. 2009, 68:2247-2255.
27. Green C., Gerard K. Exploring the social value of health-care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 2009, 18:951-976.
28. Gyrd-Hansen D. Investigating the social value of health changes. J. Health Econ. 2004, 23:1101-1116.
29. Gyrd-Hansen D., Kristiansen I.S. Preferences for 'life-saving' programmes: small for all or gambling for the prize?. Health Econ. 2008, 17:709-720.
30. Harris A.H., Hill S.R., Chin G., Li J.J., Walkom E. The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in australia: a retrospective analysis 1994-2004. Med. Decis. Mak. 2008, 28(5):713-722.
31. Hjelmgren J., Berggren F., Andersson F. Health economic guidelines-similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health 2001, 4:225-250.
32. Jelsma J., Shumba D., Kristian H., De Weerdt W., De Cock P. Preferences of urban zimbabweans for health and life lived at different ages. Bull. World Health Organ. 2002, 80:204-209.
33. Johannesson M., Johansson P.-O. The economics of ageing: on the attitude of Swedish people to the distribution of health care resources between the young and the old. Health Policy 1996, 37:153-161.
34. Johannesson M., Johansson P.-O. Is the valuation of a QALY gained independent of age? Some empirical evidence. J. Health Econ. 1997, 16:589-599.
35. Johri M., Damschroder L., Zikmund-Fisher B., Kim S., Ubel P. Can a moral reasoning exercise improve response quality to surveys of healthcare priorities?. J. Med. Ethics 2009, 35:57-64.
36. Lancsar E., Wildman J., Donaldson C., Ryan M., Baker R. Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments. J. Health Econ. 2011, 30:466-478.
37. Lewis P., 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.
38. Lim M.K., Bae E.Y., Choi S.E., Lee E.K., Lee T.J. Eliciting public preference for health-care resource allocation in South Korea. Value Health 2012, 15:S91-S94.
39. 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.
40. Mortimer D., Segal L. Is the value of a life or life-year saved context specific? Further evidence from a discrete choice experiment. Cost Eff. Resour. Allocation 2008, 6.
41. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Social Value Judgements: Principles for the Development of Nice Guidance 2008.
42. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Appraising Life-extending, End of Life Treatments 2009, NICE, London.
43. Nord E., Richardson J., Macarounas-Kirchmann K. Social evaluation of health care versus personal evaluation of health states: evidence on the validity of four health-state scaling instruments using Norwegian and Australian surveys. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 1993, 9:463-478.
44. Nord E., Richardson J., Street A., Kuhse H., Singer P. Who cares about cost? Does economic analysis impose or reflect social values?. Health Policy 1995, 34:79-94.
45. 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, 4:103-111.
46. Norman R., Hall J., Street D., Viney R. Efficiency and equity: a stated preference approach. Health Econ. 2013, 22:568-581.
47. Olsen J. Priority preferences: "End of life" does not matter, but total life does. Value Health 2013, 16:1063.
48. Olsen J.A. A note on eliciting distributive preferences for health. J. Health Econ. 2000, 19:541-550.
49. Olsen J.A., Donaldson C. Helicopters, hearts and hips: using willingness to pay to set priorities for public sector health care programmes. Soc. Sci. Med. 1998, 46:1-12.
50. Palanca-Tan R. Age preferences for life-saving programs: using choice modeling to measure the relative values of statistical life. Singap. Econ. Rev. 2013, 58.
51. Pennington M., Baker R., Brouwer W., Mason H., Hansen D.G., Robinson A., et al. Comparing WTP values of different types of QALY gain elicited from the general public. Health Econ. 2013, 24:280-293.
52. Petrou S., Kandala N.B., Robinson A., Baker R. A person trade-off study to estimate age-related weights for health gains in economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 2013, 31:893-907.
53. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee Guidelines for Preparing Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Version 4.3) 2013, Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra.
54. Pinto-Prades J.-L., Sánchez-Martínez F.-I., Corbacho B., Baker R. Valuing QALYs at the end of life. Soc. Sci. Med. 2014, 113:5-14.
55. Quintal C. Aversion to geographic inequality and geographic variation in preferences in the context of healthcare. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2009, 7:121-136.
56. Richardson J., Sinha K., Iezzi A., Maxwell A. Maximising health versus sharing: measuring preferences for the allocation of the health budget. Soc. Sci. Med. 2012, 75:1351-1361.
57. Richardson J.R., McKie J., Peacock S.J., Iezzi A. Severity as an independent determinant of the social value of a health service. Eur. J. Health Econ. 2011, 12:163-174.
58. Roberts T., Bryan S., Heginbotham C., McCallum A. Public involvement in health care priority setting: an economic perspective. Health Expect. 1999, 2:235-244.
59. Ryynanen O.P., Myllykangas M., Vaskilampi T., Takala J. Random paired scenarios-a method for investigating attitudes to prioritisation in medicine. J. Med. Ethics 1996, 22:238-242.
60. Schwappach D.L. Resource allocation, social values and the QALY: a review of the debate and empirical evidence. Health Expect. 2002, 5:210-222.
61. Schwappach D.L. The equivalence of numbers: the social value of avoiding health decline: an experimental web-based study. BMC Med. Inf. Decis. Mak. 2002, 2:3.
62. Schwappach D.L., Strasmann T.J. Quick and dirty numbers? The reliability of a stated-preference technique for the measurement of preferences for resource allocation. J. Health Econ. 2006, 25:432-448.
63. Shah K.K. Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: a review of the literature. Health Policy 2009, 93:77-84.
64. Shah K.K., Tsuchiya A., Wailoo A.J. Valuing health at the end of life: an empirical study of public preferences. Eur. J. Health Econ. 2014, 15:389-399.
65. Shiroiwa T., Igarashi A., Fukuda T., Ikeda S. WTP for a QALY and health states: more money for severer health states?. Cost Eff. Resour. Allocation 2013, 11:22.
66. 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, 15:690-698.
67. Stafinski T., Menon D., Marshall D., Caulfield T. Societal values in the allocation of healthcare resources. Patient Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2011, 4:207-225.
68. Tsuchiya A., Dolan P. Do NHS clinicians and members of the public share the same views about reducing inequalities in health?. Soc. Sci. Med. 2007, 64:2499-2503.
69. 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, 57:687-696.
70. Ubel P.A. How stable are people's preferences for giving priority to severely ill patients?. Soc. Sci. Med. 1999, 49:895-903.
71. Ubel P.A., Baron J., Asch D.A. Preference for equity as a framing effect. Med. Decis. Mak. 2001, 21:180-189.
72. Ubel P.A., Baron J., Nash B., Asch D.A. Are preferences for equity over efficiency in health care allocation "all or nothing"?. Med. Care 2000, 38:366-373.
73. Ubel P.A., DeKay M.L., Baron J., Asch D.A. Cost-effectiveness analysis in a setting of budget constraints-is it equitable?. N. Engl. J. Med. 1996, 334:1174-1177.
74. Ubel P.A., Richardson J., Prades J.L.P. Life-saving treatments and disabilities - are all QALYs created equal?. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 1999, 15:738-748.
75. Ubel P.A., Spranca M.D., DeKay M.L., Hershey J.C., Asch D.A. Public preferences for prevention versus cure: what if an ounce of prevention is worth only an ounce of cure?. Med. Decis. Mak. 1997, 18:141-148.
76. Whitty J.A., Lancsar E., Rixon K., Golenko X., Ratcliffe J. A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting. Patient Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2014, 7:365-386.
77. Whitty J.A., Ratcliffe J., Chen G., Scuffham P.A. Australian public preferences for the funding of new health technologies: a comparison of discrete choice and profile case best-worst scaling methods. Med. Decis. Mak. 2014, 34:638-654.
78. Whitty J.A., Rundle-Thiele S.R., Scuffham P.A. Insights into public preferences for pharmaceutical funding. Int. J. Pharm. Healthc. Mark. 2008, 2:216-234.
79. Whitty J.A., Scuffham P.A., Rundle-Thielee S.R. Public and decision maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2011, 9:73-79.
80. Winkelhage J., Diederich A. The relevance of personal characteristics in allocating health care resources-controversial preferences of laypersons with different educational backgrounds. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2012, 9:223-243.
81. Youngkong S., Kapiriri L., Baltussen R. Setting priorities for health interventions in developing countries: a review of empirical studies. Trop. Med. Int. Health 2009, 14:930-939.