Helen Mason1, Rachel Baker, Cam Donaldson. 1. Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. helen.mason@ncl.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Health care budgets are finite and decisions must be made about which interventions to provide and, by implication, which will not be provided. The aim of this study was to investigate what features of health care interventions, including the type of health gain, are important to members of the public in England in making priority-setting decisions and to understand why. METHODS: Q methodology was used with 52 members of the public in north east England. Respondents rank ordered 36 health care interventions from those they would give highest priority to through to those they would give lowest priority to. A form of factor analysis was used to reveal a small number of shared viewpoints. RESULTS: Five factors emerged: 'life saving to maximize the size of the health gain', 'everyone deserves a chance at life', '(potential for) own benefit', 'maximum benefit for (perceived) lowest cost' and 'quality of life and social responsibility'. There were different views about which interventions should be given priority. Respondents considered not only the type of health gain received from an intervention as important, but also the size of the health gain, who received the health gain and an individual's personal responsibility. CONCLUSIONS: Aspects other than health gain need to be considered when soliciting the public's views of priorities for health care interventions.
OBJECTIVES: Health care budgets are finite and decisions must be made about which interventions to provide and, by implication, which will not be provided. The aim of this study was to investigate what features of health care interventions, including the type of health gain, are important to members of the public in England in making priority-setting decisions and to understand why. METHODS: Q methodology was used with 52 members of the public in north east England. Respondents rank ordered 36 health care interventions from those they would give highest priority to through to those they would give lowest priority to. A form of factor analysis was used to reveal a small number of shared viewpoints. RESULTS: Five factors emerged: 'life saving to maximize the size of the health gain', 'everyone deserves a chance at life', '(potential for) own benefit', 'maximum benefit for (perceived) lowest cost' and 'quality of life and social responsibility'. There were different views about which interventions should be given priority. Respondents considered not only the type of health gain received from an intervention as important, but also the size of the health gain, who received the health gain and an individual's personal responsibility. CONCLUSIONS: Aspects other than health gain need to be considered when soliciting the public's views of priorities for health care interventions.