nach oben

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research

Erschienen in:

01.12.2014 | Systematic Review

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

verfasst von: Jennifer A. Whitty, Emily Lancsar, Kylie Rixon, Xanthe Golenko, Julie Ratcliffe

Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Ausgabe 4/2014

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

There is current interest in incorporating weights based on public preferences for health and healthcare into priority-setting decisions.

Objective

The aim of this systematic review was to explore the extent to which public preferences and trade-offs for priority-setting criteria have been quantified, and to describe the study contexts and preference elicitation methods employed.

Methods

A systematic review was performed in April 2013 to identify empirical studies eliciting the stated preferences of the public for the provision of healthcare in a priority-setting context. Studies are described in terms of (i) the stated preference approaches used, (ii) the priority-setting levels and contexts, and (iii) the criteria identified as important and their relative importance.

Results

Thirty-nine studies applying 40 elicitation methods reported in 41 papers met the inclusion criteria. The discrete choice experiment method was most commonly applied (n = 18, 45.0 %), but other approaches, including contingent valuation and the person trade-off, were also used. Studies prioritised health systems (n = 4, 10.2 %), policies/programmes/services/interventions (n = 16, 41.0 %), or patient groups (n = 19, 48.7 %). Studies generally confirmed the importance of a wide range of process, non-health and patient-related characteristics in priority setting in selected contexts, alongside health outcomes. However, inconsistencies were observed for the relative importance of some prioritisation criteria, suggesting context and/or elicitation approach matter.

Conclusions

Overall, findings suggest caution in directly incorporating public preferences as weights for priority setting unless the methods used to elicit the weights can be shown to be appropriate and robust in the priority-setting context.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Australian Government Productivity Commission. Impacts of advances in medical technology in Australia. Melbourne: Australian Government Productivity Commission; 2005.

American College of Physicians. How can our nation conserve and distribute health care resources effectively and efficiently? Philadelphia American College of Physicians; 2011.

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.CrossRef

Schwappach DL. Resource allocation, social values and the QALY: a review of the debate and empirical evidence. Health Expect. 2002;5(3):210–22.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Mooney G, Jan S, Wiseman V. Examining preferences for allocating health care gains. Health Care Anal. 1995;3(3):261–5.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMed

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMed

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Norman R, Hall J, Street D, Viney R. Efficiency and equity: a stated preference approach. Health Econ. 2012;. doi:10.1002/hec.2827.PubMed

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMed

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

68.

Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–77.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.CrossRef

Titel: A Systematic Review of Stated Preference Studies Reporting Public Preferences for Healthcare Priority Setting
verfasst von: Jennifer A. Whitty
Emily Lancsar
Kylie Rixon
Xanthe Golenko
Julie Ratcliffe
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2014
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Ausgabe 4/2014
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Elektronische ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0063-2

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

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

Abstract

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2014

A Systematic Review of the Impact of Patient and Public Involvement on Service Users, Researchers and Communities

Characteristics and Experiences of Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer Who Left an Active Surveillance Program

Improving Communication in the Primary Care Setting: Perspectives of Patients with Speech Disabilities

Acknowledgement to Referees

Evaluation of Patient Preference and Willingness to Pay for Attributes of Maintenance Medication for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)

Measuring the Symptoms of Pediatric Constipation and Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Constipation: Expert Commentary and Literature Review