Literature DB >> 12652513

Does it matter who you are or what you gain? An experimental study of preferences for resource allocation.

David L B Schwappach1.   

Abstract

Using an experimental conjoint-analysis like approach, preferences for resource allocation were studied. An interactive survey was developed which was published in the World Wide Web. A convenience sample of undergraduate students participated in the study. Subjects were confronted with nine pairwise scenarios describing hypothetical patient groups in need of life-saving treatments. The patient groups presented differed in terms of their health-related lifestyle, socioeconomic status, age, life expectancy, quality of life after treatment and whether they had received extensive medical care in the past. Participants were asked to allocate a finite budget to each patient group. All attributes used in this study significantly influenced respondents' preferences on how to allocate the budget between patient groups. The general importance of attributes used in the QALY approach is supported by this study with quality of life being a central criterion. The distributional patterns observed were, however, different from those expected when rigorously adhering to the QALY framework: In only a very small fraction of allocations subjects distributed the entire budget strictly on the patient group expecting the highest QALY gain. The vast majority of responders was willing to trade efficiency for a more equal distribution of resources. The approach described can be used to analyze the importance people place on different attributes in resource allocation decisions and to study preferences for the final distribution of resources. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Health Care and Public Health

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12652513     DOI: 10.1002/hec.713

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  18 in total

1.  Priority setting for pharmaceuticals. The use of health economic evidence by reimbursement and clinical guidance committees.

Authors:  Anders Anell
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2004-02

2.  Discrete choice experiment of smoking cessation behaviour in Japan.

Authors:  Rei Goto; Shuzo Nishimura; Takanori Ida
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 7.552

3.  Choosing vs. allocating: discrete choice experiments and constant-sum paired comparisons for the elicitation of societal preferences.

Authors:  Chris D Skedgel; Allan J Wailoo; Ron L Akehurst
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-06-12       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  Measuring Public Preferences for Health Outcomes and Expenditures in a Context of Healthcare Resource Re-Allocation.

Authors:  Nicolas Krucien; Nathalie Pelletier-Fleury; Amiram Gafni
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Constant-sum paired comparisons for eliciting stated preferences: a tutorial.

Authors:  Chris Skedgel; Dean A Regier
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  Harnessing the potential to quantify public preferences for healthcare priorities through citizens' juries.

Authors:  Jennifer A Whitty; Paul Burton; Elizabeth Kendall; Julie Ratcliffe; Andrew Wilson; Peter Littlejohns; Paul A Scuffham
Journal:  Int J Health Policy Manag       Date:  2014-06-16

Review 7.  A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting.

Authors:  Jennifer A Whitty; Emily Lancsar; Kylie Rixon; Xanthe Golenko; Julie Ratcliffe
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  The relevance of personal characteristics in allocating health care resources-controversial preferences of laypersons with different educational backgrounds.

Authors:  Jeannette Winkelhage; Adele Diederich
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2012-01-16       Impact factor: 3.390

9.  Age as a criterion for setting priorities in health care? A survey of the German public view.

Authors:  Adele Diederich; Jeannette Winkelhage; Norman Wirsik
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-08-31       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Eliciting the public preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy in Iran: a discrete choice experiment study.

Authors:  Mansoor Delpasand; Alireza Olyaaeemanesh; Ebrahim Jaafaripooyan; Akbar Abdollahiasl; Majid Davari; Ali Kazemi Karyani
Journal:  J Pharm Policy Pract       Date:  2021-07-13
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.