Literature DB >> 22529053

Efficiency and equity: a stated preference approach.

Richard Norman1, Jane Hall, Deborah Street, Rosalie Viney.   

Abstract

Outcome measurement in the economic evaluation of health care considers outcomes independent of to whom they accrue. This article reports on a discrete choice experiment designed to elicit population preferences regarding the allocation of health gain between hypothetical groups of potential patients. A random-effects probit model is estimated, and a technique for converting these results into equity weights for use in economic evaluation is adopted. On average, the modelling predicts a relatively high social value on health gains accruing to nonsmokers, carers, those with a low income and those with an expected age of death less than 45 years. Respondents tend to favour individuals with similar characteristics to themselves. These results challenge the conventional practice of assuming constant equity weighting. For decision makers, whether a formal equity weighting system represents an improvement on more informal approaches to weighing up equity and efficiency concerns remains uncertain.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22529053     DOI: 10.1002/hec.2827

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


  13 in total

1.  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

2.  Are some QALYs more equal than others?

Authors:  E J van de Wetering; N J A van Exel; J M Rose; R J Hoefman; W B F Brouwer
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2014-12-06

3.  The prioritization preferences of pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review members and the Canadian public: a stated-preferences comparison.

Authors:  C Skedgel
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2016-10-25       Impact factor: 3.677

4.  Current Practices for Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Health-Related Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Suzana Karim; Benjamin M Craig; Caroline Vass; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2022-08-12       Impact factor: 4.558

Review 5.  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

6.  A think aloud study comparing the validity and acceptability of discrete choice and best worst scaling methods.

Authors:  Jennifer A Whitty; Ruth Walker; Xanthe Golenko; Julie Ratcliffe
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-04-23       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Weighting Health Outcomes by Socioeconomic Position Using Stated Preferences.

Authors:  Anita Lal; Mohammad Siahpush; Marjory Moodie; Anna Peeters; Robert Carter
Journal:  Pharmacoecon Open       Date:  2018-03

8.  Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.

Authors:  Vikas Soekhai; Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Alan R Ellis; Caroline M Vass
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Valuing QALYs in Relation to Equity Considerations Using a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Liesbet van de Wetering; Job van Exel; Ana Bobinac; Werner B F Brouwer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  The views of the general public on prioritising vaccination programmes against childhood diseases: A qualitative study.

Authors:  Gemma Lasseter; Hareth Al-Janabi; Caroline L Trotter; Fran E Carroll; Hannah Christensen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.