A meta-analysis demonstrates no significant differences between patient and population preferences.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To summarize and quantify mean differences between directly elicited patient and population health state evaluations (= preferences) and to identify factors explaining these differences.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two meta-analyses of observational studies comparing directly elicited patient and population preferences for two stratified health state classifications: actual/hypothetical and hypothetical/hypothetical health states.
RESULTS: Thirty-three articles comparing directly elicited patient and population preferences were included, yielding 78 independent preference estimates. These preference estimates served as input for the two stratified health state classifications. Data on health state assessments, elicitation methods, assessment method, and population characteristics was extracted by one reviewer, and checked by two other reviewers. These parameters were used to explain sources of heterogeneity. Overall, patients' actual health state preferences were not significantly higher than populations hypothetical health state preferences (summary mean difference [SMD] = -0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.01, 0.03). Nor did preferences for hypothetical health states differ between patients and population (SMD -0.00, 95% CI = -0.02, 0.02). Most parameters substantially influenced the SMD, although the magnitude and direction differed for the two strata used (all P-values <.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The actual/hypothetical and hypothetical/hypothetical meta-analyses demonstrated no significant differences between patient and population preferences, suggesting that both can be used to allocate scarce resources.