10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article
      1 , * , 2
      PLoS ONE
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The principle of distributing health care according to medical need is being challenged by increasing costs. As a result, many countries have initiated a debate on the introduction of explicit priority regulations based on medical, economic and person-based criteria, or have already established such regulations. Previous research on individual attitudes towards setting health care priorities based on medical and economic criteria has revealed consistent results, whereas studies on the use of person-based criteria have generated controversial findings. This paper examines citizens’ attitudes towards three person-based priority criteria, patients’ smoking habits, age and being the parent of a young child. Using data from the ISSP Health Module (2011) in 28 countries, logistic regression analysis demonstrates that self-interest as well as socio-demographic predictors significantly influence respondents’ attitudes towards the use of person-based criteria for health care prioritization. This study contributes to resolving the controversial findings on person-based criteria by using a larger country sample and by controlling for country-level differences with fixed effects models.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the 'fair innings' argument.

          Many different equity principles may need to be traded off against efficiency when prioritizing health care. This paper explores one of them: the concept of a 'fair innings'. It reflects the feeling that everyone is entitled to some 'normal' span of health (usually expressed in life years, e.g. 'three score years and ten') and anyone failing to achieve this has been cheated, whilst anyone getting more than this is 'living on borrowed time'. Four important characteristics of the 'fair innings' notion are worth noting: firstly, it is outcome based, not process-based or resource-based; secondly, it is about a person's whole life-time experience, not about their state at any particular point in time; thirdly, it reflects an aversion to inequality; and fourthly, it is quantifiable. Even in common parlance it is usually expressed in numerical terms: death at 25 is viewed very differently from death at 85. But age at death should be no more than a first approximation, because the quality of a person's life is important as well as its length. The analysis suggests that this notion of intergenerational equity requires greater discrimination against the elderly than would be dictated simply by efficiency objectives.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Exploring the social value of health-care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment.

            Much of the literature on distributive preferences covers specific considerations in isolation, and recent reviews have suggested that research is required to inform on the relative importance of various key considerations. Responding to this research recommendation, we explore the distributive preferences of the general public using a set of generic social value judgments. We report on a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey, using face-to-face interviews, in a sample of the general population (n=259). The context for the survey was resource allocation decisions in the UK National Health Service, using the process of health technology appraisal as an example. The attributes used covered health improvement, value for money, severity of health, and availability of other treatments, and it is the first such survey to use cost-effectiveness in scenarios described to the general public. Results support the feasibility and acceptability of the DCE approach for the elicitation of public preferences. Choice data are used to consider the relative importance of changes across attribute levels, and to model utility scores and relative probabilities for the full set of combinations of attributes and levels in the experimental design used (n=64). Results allow the relative social value of health technology scenarios to be explored. Findings add to a sparse literature on 'social' preferences, and show that DCE data can be used to consider the strength of preference over alternative scenarios in a priority-setting context.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

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

              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.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                9 June 2016
                2016
                : 11
                : 6
                : e0157018
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation, University Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany
                [2 ]Department of Economic Sociology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
                Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, FRANCE
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: JR. Performed the experiments: JR. Analyzed the data: JR. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: JR BK. Wrote the paper: JR BK.

                Article
                PONE-D-16-04782
                10.1371/journal.pone.0157018
                4900563
                27280775
                3f182647-f03c-4ee6-9bac-258b628ee1ef
                © 2016 Rogge, Kittel

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 8 February 2016
                : 22 May 2016
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 3, Pages: 15
                Funding
                The authors have no support or funding to report.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Behavior
                Habits
                Smoking Habits
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Patients
                Social Sciences
                Economics
                Health Economics
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Economics
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Age Groups
                Elderly
                Social Sciences
                Sociology
                Education
                Schools
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Survey Research
                Surveys
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Behavioral and Social Aspects of Health
                Custom metadata
                All data are publicly available at ISSP Research Group (2015): International Social Survey Programme: Health and Health Care—ISSP 2011. GESIS Datenarchiv, Köln. ZA5800 Datenfile Version 3.0.0, doi: 10.4232/1.12252.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article