Arna S Desser1, Jan Abel Olsen, Sverre Grepperud. 1. Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, PO Box 1089, Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway, arna.desser@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding societal preferences regarding resource allocation in the health sector has gained importance as countries increasingly base reimbursement decisions on economic evaluations. Preference elicitation using surveys, a common practice in the health sector, is subject to a range of framing effects. OBJECTIVE: This research investigates the importance of (theoretically relevant) opportunity costs and (theoretically irrelevant) framing effects on stated preferences for prioritizing treatment of rare (orphan) diseases. METHODS: We elicited preferences from Norwegians, aged 40-67, using simple trade-off exercises. Respondents were randomised to different opportunity costs of the rare disease or to different framings of the trade-off exercises. RESULTS: Respondents were quite sensitive to the visual presentation of the choice problem, and, to a lesser extent, to focusing and labelling effects. Elicited preferences varied little in response to large changes in opportunity costs, suggesting scope-insensitivity among respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Preferences for prioritizing treatment of rare diseases elicited using trade-off exercises are insensitive to (theoretically relevant) opportunity costs, but sensitive to (theoretically irrelevant) framing effects.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Understanding societal preferences regarding resource allocation in the health sector has gained importance as countries increasingly base reimbursement decisions on economic evaluations. Preference elicitation using surveys, a common practice in the health sector, is subject to a range of framing effects. OBJECTIVE: This research investigates the importance of (theoretically relevant) opportunity costs and (theoretically irrelevant) framing effects on stated preferences for prioritizing treatment of rare (orphan) diseases. METHODS: We elicited preferences from Norwegians, aged 40-67, using simple trade-off exercises. Respondents were randomised to different opportunity costs of the rare disease or to different framings of the trade-off exercises. RESULTS: Respondents were quite sensitive to the visual presentation of the choice problem, and, to a lesser extent, to focusing and labelling effects. Elicited preferences varied little in response to large changes in opportunity costs, suggesting scope-insensitivity among respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Preferences for prioritizing treatment of rare diseases elicited using trade-off exercises are insensitive to (theoretically relevant) opportunity costs, but sensitive to (theoretically irrelevant) framing effects.
Authors: Michael F Drummond; David A Wilson; Panos Kanavos; Peter Ubel; Joan Rovira Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2007 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Nick Dragojlovic; Shirin Rizzardo; Nick Bansback; Craig Mitton; Carlo A Marra; Larry D Lynd Journal: Patient Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Lesley Chim; Glenn Salkeld; Patrick Kelly; Wendy Lipworth; Dyfrig A Hughes; Martin R Stockler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 3.240