Nicolas Krucien1, Nathalie Pelletier-Fleury2, Amiram Gafni3. 1. Health Economics Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB25 2QN, Scotland, UK. nicolas.krucien@abdn.ac.uk. 2. Centre de Recherche en Epidémiologie et Santé des Populations, Université Paris-Sud, UVSQ, INSERM, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France. 3. Department of Health Research Methods, Evaluation and Impact, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The final outcome of any resource allocation decision in healthcare cannot be determined in advance. Thus, decision makers, in deciding which new program to implement (or not), need to accommodate the uncertainty of different potential outcomes (i.e., change in both health and costs) that can occur, the size and nature (i.e., 'bad' or 'good') of these outcomes, and how they are being valued. Using the decision-making plane, which explicitly incorporates opportunity costs and relaxes the assumptions of perfect divisibility and constant returns to scale of the cost-effectiveness plane, all the potential outcomes of each resource allocation decision can be described. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we describe the development and testing of an instrument, using a discrete choice experiment methodology, allowing the measurement of public preferences for potential outcomes falling in different quadrants of the decision-making plane. METHOD: In a sample of 200 participants providing 4200 observations, we compared four versions of the preference-elicitation instrument using a range of indicators. RESULTS: We identified one version that was well accepted by the participants and with good measurement properties. CONCLUSION: This validated instrument can now be used in a larger representative sample to study the preferences of the public for potential outcomes stemming from re-allocation of healthcare resources.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The final outcome of any resource allocation decision in healthcare cannot be determined in advance. Thus, decision makers, in deciding which new program to implement (or not), need to accommodate the uncertainty of different potential outcomes (i.e., change in both health and costs) that can occur, the size and nature (i.e., 'bad' or 'good') of these outcomes, and how they are being valued. Using the decision-making plane, which explicitly incorporates opportunity costs and relaxes the assumptions of perfect divisibility and constant returns to scale of the cost-effectiveness plane, all the potential outcomes of each resource allocation decision can be described. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we describe the development and testing of an instrument, using a discrete choice experiment methodology, allowing the measurement of public preferences for potential outcomes falling in different quadrants of the decision-making plane. METHOD: In a sample of 200 participants providing 4200 observations, we compared four versions of the preference-elicitation instrument using a range of indicators. RESULTS: We identified one version that was well accepted by the participants and with good measurement properties. CONCLUSION: This validated instrument can now be used in a larger representative sample to study the preferences of the public for potential outcomes stemming from re-allocation of healthcare resources.