Literature DB >> 25550076

Public views on principles for health care priority setting: findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology.

Job van Exel1, Rachel Baker2, Helen Mason2, Cam Donaldson2, Werner Brouwer3.   

Abstract

Resources available to the health care sector are finite and typically insufficient to fulfil all the demands for health care in the population. Decisions must be made about which treatments to provide. Relatively little is known about the views of the general public regarding the principles that should guide such decisions. We present the findings of a Q methodology study designed to elicit the shared views in the general public across ten countries regarding the appropriate principles for prioritising health care resources. In 2010, 294 respondents rank ordered a set of cards and the results of these were subject to by-person factor analysis to identify common patterns in sorting. Five distinct viewpoints were identified, (I) "Egalitarianism, entitlement and equality of access"; (II) "Severity and the magnitude of health gains"; (III) "Fair innings, young people and maximising health benefits"; (IV) "The intrinsic value of life and healthy living"; (V) "Quality of life is more important than simply staying alive". Given the plurality of views on the principles for health care priority setting, no single equity principle can be used to underpin health care priority setting. Hence, the process of decision making becomes more important, in which, arguably, these multiple perspectives in society should be somehow reflected.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Decision making; Equity; Europe; Health care; Q methodology; QALYs; Resource allocation; Social values

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25550076     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.12.023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  26 in total

1.  When is it too expensive? Cost-effectiveness thresholds and health care decision-making.

Authors:  Werner Brouwer; Pieter van Baal; Job van Exel; Matthijs Versteegh
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2019-03

2.  Accountability for an unhealthy lifestyle.

Authors:  Daniel M Campagne
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2021-04

3.  Perception of Medical Students on the Need for End-of-Life Care: A Q-Methodology Study.

Authors:  Jorge Barros-Garcia-Imhof; Andrés Jiménez-Alfonso; Inés Gómez-Acebo; María Fernández-Ortiz; Jéssica Alonso-Molero; Javier Llorca; Alejandro Gonzalez-Castro; Trinidad Dierssen-Sotos
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-06-28       Impact factor: 4.614

4.  Interpretations of autonomous decision-making in antenatal genetic screening among women in China, Hong Kong and Pakistan.

Authors:  Shenaz Ahmed; Huso Yi; Dong Dong; Jianfeng Zhu; Hussain Jafri; Yasmin Rashid; Olivia My Ngan; Mushtaq Ahmed
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  Utilization of Advanced Cardiovascular Therapies in the United States and Canada: An Observational Study of New York and Ontario Administrative Data.

Authors:  Peter Cram; Saket Girotra; John Matelski; Maria Koh; Bruce E Landon; Lu Han; Douglas S Lee; Dennis T Ko
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2020-01-20

Review 6.  Does the Public Prefer Health Gain for Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review of Public Views on Cancer and its Characteristics.

Authors:  Liz Morrell; Sarah Wordsworth; Sian Rees; Richard Barker
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Public engagement in setting healthcare priorities: a ranking exercise in Cyprus.

Authors:  Antonis Farmakas; Mamas Theodorou; Petros Galanis; Georgios Karayiannis; Stefanos Ghobrial; Nikos Polyzos; Evridiki Papastavrou; Eirini Agapidaki; Kyriakos Souliotis
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2017-08-09

8.  A scoping review of Q-methodology in healthcare research.

Authors:  Kate Churruca; Kristiana Ludlow; Wendy Wu; Kate Gibbons; Hoa Mi Nguyen; Louise A Ellis; Jeffrey Braithwaite
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-06-21       Impact factor: 4.615

9.  Who Shall Not Be Treated: Public Attitudes on Setting Health Care Priorities by Person-Based Criteria in 28 Nations.

Authors:  Jana Rogge; Bernhard Kittel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-09       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.