Dataset Information

Does moral reasoning influence public values for health care priority setting?: A population-based randomized stated preference survey.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Preferences of members of the public are recognized as important inputs into health care priority-setting, though knowledge of such preferences is scant. We sought to generate evidence of public preferences related to healthcare resource allocation among adults and children.

Methods

We conducted an experimental stated preference survey in a national sample of Canadian adults. Preferences were elicited across a range of scenarios and scored on a visual analogue scale. Intervention group participants were randomized to a moral reasoning exercise prior to each choice task. The main outcomes were the differences in mean preference scores by group, scenario, and demographics.

Results

Our results demonstrate a consistent preference by participants to allocate scarce health system resources to children. Exposure to the moral reasoning exercise weakened but did not eliminate this preference. Younger respondent age and parenthood were associated with greater preference for children. The top principles guiding participants' allocative decisions were treat equally, relieve suffering, and rescue those at risk of dying.

Conclusions

Our study affirms the relevance of age in public preferences for the allocation of scarce health care resources, demonstrating a significant preference by participants to allocate healthcare resources to children. However, this preference diminishes when challenged by exposure to a range of moral principles, revealing a strong public endorsement of equality of access. Definitions of value in healthcare based on clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness may exclude moral considerations that the public values, such as equality and humanitarianism, highlighting opportunities to enrich healthcare priority-setting through public engagement.

SUBMITTER: Denburg AE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7219374 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does moral reasoning influence public values for health care priority setting?: A population-based randomized stated preference survey.

Denburg Avram E AE Ungar Wendy J WJ Chen Shiyi S Hurley Jeremiah J Abelson Julia J

Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 20200513 6

<h4>Objective</h4>Preferences of members of the public are recognized as important inputs into health care priority-setting, though knowledge of such preferences is scant. We sought to generate evidence of public preferences related to healthcare resource allocation among adults and children.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted an experimental stated preference survey in a national sample of Canadian adults. Preferences were elicited across a range of scenarios and scored on a visual analogue scale. Int ...[more]

PMID: 32405121

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis study aims to assess preferences and values for priority setting in healthcare in Chile through an original and innovative survey method. Based on the answers from a previous survey that look into the barriers the Chilean population face, this study considers the preferences of the communities overcoming those barriers. As a result six programs were identified: (1) new infrastructure, (2) better healthcare coverage, (3) increasing physicians/specialists, (4) new informatics systems, (5) new awareness healthcare programs, and (6) improving availability of drugs.MethodsWe applied an innovative survey method developed for this study to sample subjects to prioritize these programs by their opinion and by allocating resources. The survey also asked people's preferences for a distributive justice principle for healthcare to guide priority setting of services in Chile. The survey was conducted with a sample of 1142 individuals.ResultsMore than half of the interviewees (56.4%) indicated a single program as their first priority, while 20.1% selected two of them as their first priority. To increase the number of doctors/specialists and improve patient-doctor communication was the program that obtained the highest priority. The second and third priorities correspond to improving and investing in infrastructure and expanding the coverage of healthcare insurances. Additionally, the results showed that equal access for equal healthcare is the principle selected by the majority to guide distributive justice for the Chilean health system.ConclusionsThis study shows how a large population sample can participate in major decision making of national health policies, including making a choice of a distributive justice principle. Despite the complexity of the questions asked, this study demonstrated that with an innovative method and adequate guidance, average population is capable of engaging in expressing their preferences and values. Results of this study provide policy-makers useful community generated information for prioritizing policies to improve healthcare access.

Project description:BackgroundDiscrete choice experiments (DCEs) are frequently used to study preferences and quantify tradeoffs in decision making. It is important to understand how stable their results are.ObjectiveTo investigate to what extent an extreme change in context, the COVID-19 pandemic, affected preferences for vaccine priority setting, as observed in an earlier DCE.MethodsWe replicated a DCE in which participants had to prioritize vaccination programs for public funding. The initial DCE was executed in Flanders (Belgium) right before the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (December 2019, N = 1,636). The replicated DCE was executed 6 months later when the population was in lockdown (April 2020, N = 1,127). A total of 612 respondents participated in both waves of the DCE. We used panel mixed logit models to quantify attribute and level importance and compared utility estimates for consistency.ResultsThe number of vaccine-preventable deaths became less important during the pandemic than before, whereas the influential attributes, the vaccine's contribution to disease eradication and certainty about vaccine effectiveness became even more important. Respondents attached equal importance to the number of patients with transient or permanent morbidity, to the disease's economic impact as well as to its equity profile.ConclusionDifferent preferences for vaccine priority setting were observed during the first COVID-19 lockdown as compared with before, although these differences were, given the extreme nature of the changing circumstances, relatively small.HighlightsWe replicated a discrete choice experiment (DCE) about vaccine priority setting during the first COVID-19 lockdown and compared results with those from the original setting.The major attributes, contribution to disease eradication, and scientific certainty about vaccine effectiveness became even more important than they already were, whereas avoidable mortality became less important.Respondents attached equal importance to the number of patients with transient or permanent morbidity, to the disease's economic impact as well as to its equity profile.An extreme change in directly related context to the choice assignment led to changes in stated preferences, although these changes were relatively small, given the extreme change in context.Priorities in the second DCE were even less aligned with cost-effectiveness analysis than those observed initially.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate public willingness to share sensitive health information for research, health policy and clinical practice.MethodsA total of 1,003 Australian respondents answered an online, attribute-driven, survey in which participants were asked to accept or reject hypothetical choice sets based on a willingness to share their health data for research and frontline-medical support as part of an integrated health system. The survey consisted of 5 attributes: Stakeholder access for analysis (Analysing group); Type of information collected; Purpose of data collection; Information governance; and Anticipated benefit; the results of which were analysed using logistic regression.ResultsWhen asked about their preference for sharing their health data, respondents had no preference between data collection for the purposes of clinical practice, health policy or research, with a slight preference for having government organisations manage, govern and curate the integrated datasets from which the analysis was being conducted. The least preferred option was for personal health records to be integrated with insurance records or for their data collected by privately owned corporate organisations. Individuals preferred their data to be analysed by a public healthcare provider or government staff and expressed a dislike for any private company involvement.ConclusionsThe findings from this study suggest that Australian consumers prefer to share their health data when there is government oversight, and have concerns about sharing their anonymised health data for clinical practice, health policy or research purposes unless clarity is provided pertaining to its intended purpose, limitations of use and restrictions to access. Similar findings have been observed in the limited set of existing international studies utilising a stated preference approach. Evident from this study, and supported by national and international research, is that the establishment and preservation of a social license for data linkage in health research will require routine public engagement as a result of continuously evolving technological advancements and fluctuating risk tolerance. Without more work to understand and address stakeholder concerns, consumers risk being reluctant to participate in data-sharing and linkage programmes.

Project description:ObjectivesPriority setting in health directly impacts the general public as payers and final consumers, so the public preferences must be considered. The present study aimed to provide public preferences about health intervention allocation criteria for the optimal allocation of public health budget in Iran.MethodsA choice-based survey method was used to assess the general public's preferences regarding 8 critical criteria with a societal aspect. One thousand sixty-four adult citizens of Tehran, Iran, participated in the study. Participants were asked to allocate a hypothetical budget between the two groups with differences in allocation criteria. Public preferences were inferred from absolute majority responses i.e., more than 50% of participants' allocation for a criterion. The Logistic Regression Model was used to investigate the factors affecting the preferences regarding the importance of allocation criteria.ResultsBased on expressed participants' preferences, criteria of disease severity, age, daily care needs, Number of alternative interventions, individual's economic status, and diseases with absence from work were important. Thus, 77, 69, 61, 57, 54, and 51% of participants preferred to allocate the hypothetical budget to the treatment of patients with poor economic status, treatment of patients with diseases leading to absence from work, treating patients with severe diseases, treatment of diseases in need of daily care and treatment of children's diseases, respectively. Findings from the factors affecting participants' preferences regarding allocation criteria also showed that people with different characteristics had different preferences.ConclusionsIranian general public pays special attention to the criteria of equitable allocation, including patients' economic status, criteria with societal aspects such as absenteeism from work and the need for daily care, as well as criteria with medical aspects such as disease severity and access to alternative interventions which may sometimes be less considered in decision making.

Dataset Information

Does moral reasoning influence public values for health care priority setting?: A population-based randomized stated preference survey.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Does moral reasoning influence public values for health care priority setting?: A population-based randomized stated preference survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets