BACKGROUND: Maximising health as the guiding principle for resource allocation in health has been challenged by concerns about the distribution of health outcomes. There are few empirical studies that consider these potentially divergent objectives in settings of extreme resource scarcity. The aim of this study is to help fill this knowledge gap by exploring distributional preferences among health planners in Tanzania. METHODS: A deliberative group method was employed. Participants were health planners at district and regional level, selected by strategic sampling. The health planners alternated between group discussion and individual tasks. Respondents ranked health programmes with different target groups, and selected and ranked the reasons they thought should be given most importance in priority setting. RESULTS: A majority consistently assigned higher rankings to programmes where the initial life expectancy of the target group was lower. A high proportion of respondents considered "affect those with least life expectancy" to be the most important reason in priority setting. CONCLUSIONS: Distribution of health outcomes, in terms of life-years, matters. Specifically, the lower the initial life expectancy of the target group, the more important the programme is considered. Such preferences are compatible, within the sphere of health, with what ethicists call "prioritarianism".
BACKGROUND: Maximising health as the guiding principle for resource allocation in health has been challenged by concerns about the distribution of health outcomes. There are few empirical studies that consider these potentially divergent objectives in settings of extreme resource scarcity. The aim of this study is to help fill this knowledge gap by exploring distributional preferences among health planners in Tanzania. METHODS: A deliberative group method was employed. Participants were health planners at district and regional level, selected by strategic sampling. The health planners alternated between group discussion and individual tasks. Respondents ranked health programmes with different target groups, and selected and ranked the reasons they thought should be given most importance in priority setting. RESULTS: A majority consistently assigned higher rankings to programmes where the initial life expectancy of the target group was lower. A high proportion of respondents considered "affect those with least life expectancy" to be the most important reason in priority setting. CONCLUSIONS: Distribution of health outcomes, in terms of life-years, matters. Specifically, the lower the initial life expectancy of the target group, the more important the programme is considered. Such preferences are compatible, within the sphere of health, with what ethicists call "prioritarianism".
Authors: Sarah E Rutstein; Joan T Price; Nora E Rosenberg; Stuart M Rennie; Andrea K Biddle; William C Miller Journal: Glob Public Health Date: 2016-05-04
Authors: Oliver Sabot; Justin M Cohen; Michelle S Hsiang; James G Kahn; Suprotik Basu; Linhua Tang; Bin Zheng; Qi Gao; Linda Zou; Allison Tatarsky; Shahina Aboobakar; Jennifer Usas; Scott Barrett; Jessica L Cohen; Dean T Jamison; Richard G A Feachem Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ezekiel J Emanuel; Govind Persad; Adam Kern; Allen Buchanan; Cécile Fabre; Daniel Halliday; Joseph Heath; Lisa Herzog; R J Leland; Ephrem T Lemango; Florencia Luna; Matthew S McCoy; Ole F Norheim; Trygve Ottersen; G Owen Schaefer; Kok-Chor Tan; Christopher Heath Wellman; Jonathan Wolff; Henry S Richardson Journal: Science Date: 2020-09-03 Impact factor: 47.728