Literature DB >> 25500745

Equity and efficiency preferences of health policy makers in China--a stated preference analysis.

Francesco Paolucci1, Emmanouil Mentzakis2, Thierry Defechereux2, Louis W Niessen2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Macroeconomic growth in China enables significant progress in health care and public health. It faces difficult choices regarding access, quality and affordability, while dealing with the increasing burden of chronic diseases. Policymakers are pressured to make complex decisions while implementing health strategies. This study shows how this process could be structured and reports the specific equity and efficiency preferences among Chinese policymakers.
METHODS: In total, 78 regional, provincial and national level policymakers with considerable experience participated in a discrete choice experiment, weighting the relative importance of six policy attributes describing equity and efficiency. Results from a conditional logistic model are presented for the six criteria, measuring the associated weights. Observed and unobserved heterogeneities were incorporated and tested in the model. Findings are used to give an example of ranking health interventions in relation to the present disease burden in China.
RESULTS: In general, respondents showed strong preference for efficiency criteria i.e. total beneficiaries and cost-effectiveness as the most important attributes in decision making over equity criteria. Hence, priority interventions would be those conditions that are most prevalent in the country and cost least per health gain.
CONCLUSION: Although efficiency criteria override equity ones, major health threats in China would be targeted. Multicriteria decision analysis makes explicit important trade-offs between efficiency and equity, leading to explicit, transparent and rational policy making. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
© The Author 2014; all rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Decision making; discrete choice experiment; efficiency; equity

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25500745     DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czu123

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Policy Plan        ISSN: 0268-1080            Impact factor:   3.344


  8 in total

1.  Using Latent Class Analysis to Model Preference Heterogeneity in Health: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Mo Zhou; Winter Maxwell Thayer; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  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 3.  Application of discrete choice experiments to enhance stakeholder engagement as a strategy for advancing implementation: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ramzi G Salloum; Elizabeth A Shenkman; Jordan J Louviere; David A Chambers
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2017-11-23       Impact factor: 7.327

4.  Efficiency and equity considerations in the preferences of health policy-makers in Israel.

Authors:  Amir Shmueli; Ofra Golan; Francesco Paolucci; Emmanouil Mentzakis
Journal:  Isr J Health Policy Res       Date:  2017-04-01

5.  The Impact of Public Health Expenditure on Health Outcomes in South Africa.

Authors:  Besuthu Hlafa; Kin Sibanda; Dumisani MacDonald Hompashe
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 3.390

6.  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

7.  Attitudes of patients and surgeons towards sham surgery trials: a protocol for a scoping review of attributes to inform a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Laura Wall; Madeleine Hinwood; Danielle Lang; Angela Smith; Samantha Bunzli; Philip Clarke; Peter F M Choong; Michelle M Dowsey; Francesco Paolucci
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-03-10       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in health care: a systematic review of the main characteristics and methodological steps.

Authors:  Talita D C Frazão; Deyse G G Camilo; Eric L S Cabral; Ricardo P Souza
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2018-11-01       Impact factor: 2.796

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.