Literature DB >> 22583464

Decision-making criteria among national policymakers in five countries: a discrete choice experiment eliciting relative preferences for equity and efficiency.

Andrew Mirelman1, Emmanouil Mentzakis, Elizabeth Kinter, Francesco Paolucci, Richard Fordham, Sachiko Ozawa, Marcos Ferraz, Rob Baltussen, Louis W Niessen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, there is a need for formalization of the priority setting processes in health. Recent research has used the term multicriteria decision analysis for methods that systematically include preferences for both equity and efficiency. The present study compares decision-makers' preferences at the country level for a set of equity and efficiency criteria according to a multicriteria decision analysis framework.
METHODS: Discrete choice experiments were conducted for Brazil, Cuba, Nepal, Norway, and Uganda. By using standardized methods, we elicited preferences for intervention attributes using a individual choice questionnaire. A multinomial logistic regression was applied to estimate the coefficients for all single-policy criteria, per country. Attributes were assigned to an equity group or to an efficiency group. After testing for scale variance, predicted probabilities for interventions with both types of attributes were compared across countries.
RESULTS: The Norway and Nepal groups showed considerable preferences for efficiency criteria over equity criteria with percent change in respective predicted sum probabilities of [10%, -84%] and [6%, -79%]. Brazil and Uganda also showed preference for the efficiency criteria though less convincingly ([-34%, -93%], [-18%, -63%], respectively). The Cuban group showed the strongest preferences with equity attributes dominating efficiency ([-52%, 213%]).
CONCLUSIONS: Group preferences of policymakers show explicit but varying trade-offs of efficiency and equity in these diverse settings. This multicriteria decision analysis approach, using discrete choice experiments, indicates that systematic setting of health priorities is possible across a variety of countries. It may be a valuable tool to guide health reform initiatives.
Copyright © 2012 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22583464     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  18 in total

1.  Comparative analysis of decision maker preferences for equity/efficiency attributes in reimbursement decisions in three European countries.

Authors:  Petra Baji; Manuel García-Goñi; László Gulácsi; Emmanouil Mentzakis; Francesco Paolucci
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2015-08-22

2.  Analysing coverage decision-making: opening Pandora's box?

Authors:  Katharina Elisabeth Fischer; Reiner Leidl
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2014-02-06

3.  Are current cost-effectiveness thresholds for low- and middle-income countries useful? Examples from the world of vaccines.

Authors:  A T Newall; M Jit; R Hutubessy
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Accounting for Scale Heterogeneity in Healthcare-Related Discrete Choice Experiments when Comparing Stated Preferences: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Stuart J Wright; Caroline M Vass; Gene Sim; Michael Burton; Denzil G Fiebig; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Preference to Family Doctor Contracted Service of Patients with Chronic Disease in Urban China: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Haode Wang; Hui Sun; Chunlin Jin; Meifeng Wang; Yashuang Luo; Wenqian Song; Haiyin Wang
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2022-08-13       Impact factor: 2.314

Review 6.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Michael D Clark; Domino Determann; Stavros Petrou; Domenico Moro; Esther W de Bekker-Grob
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  How much might a society spend on life-saving interventions at different ages while remaining cost-effective? A case study in a country with detailed data.

Authors:  Giorgi Kvizhinadze; Nick Wilson; Nisha Nair; Melissa McLeod; Tony Blakely
Journal:  Popul Health Metr       Date:  2015-07-08

8.  Equity in HTA: what doesn't get measured, gets marginalised.

Authors:  Richard Cookson; Andrew J Mirelman
Journal:  Isr J Health Policy Res       Date:  2017-07-10

9.  Do the equity-efficiency preferences of the Israeli Basket Committee match those of Israeli health policy makers?

Authors:  Amir Shmueli
Journal:  Isr J Health Policy Res       Date:  2017-04-30

10.  Balancing efficiency, equity and feasibility of HIV treatment in South Africa - development of programmatic guidance.

Authors:  Rob Baltussen; Evelinn Mikkelsen; Noor Tromp; Annekarin Hurtig; Jens Byskov; Oystein Olsen; Kristine Bærøe; Jan A Hontelez; Jerome Singh; Ole F Norheim
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2013-10-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.