Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Background
Online surveys of societal preferences – do we know what respondents are doing?
A literature review
Donna Rowen, Mandy Ryan, Aki Tsuchiya, Verity Watson, Universities of Sheffield and Aberdeen
Corresponding author: Donna Rowen <[email protected]> www.sheffield.ac.uk/heds; @sharrheds; www.abdn.ac.uk/heru; @HERU_Abdn
Contact us
Conclusion
Ex post perspective?
Key word Search-“social values” -“resource allocation”-“on-line survey”-“health”
Database: Medline 1946 onwards in English
Hits: 207
Included: Societal values in health using online survey: 13 papers, covering 14 studies
Year of publication: 2002-2013, and 9 of the 13 published 2010 or later
Journals: 9 different journals including British Medical Journal [2]; Health Economics [3]; and Value in Health [2]
Countries: Australia [2]; Europe [8]; US; other
Topics covered: patient age, baseline health (QOL, survival), health gain (QOL, survival), unmet need, end of life, dependents, sex, ethnicity, income, smoking (responsibility), rarity
Recruitment: self selected open access [1]; convenience sample [2]; online panel [10]
Sample size: 127-4118; median 800; mean 1198
Method: DCE [5]; PTO/budget pie [6]; other
Search and hits
School OfHealthAndRelatedResearch
The question
Desser, A.S., Gyrd-Hansen, D., Olsen, J.A., Grepperud, S., Kristiansen, I.S., 2010. Societal views on orphan drugs: cross sectional survey of Norwegians aged 40 to 67. BMJ 341, c4715.
Eisenberg, D., Freed, G.L., Davis, M.M., Singer, D., Prosser, L.A., 2011. Valuing health at different ages: evidence from a nationally representative survey in the US. Applied Health Economics & Health Policy 9, 149-156.
Lim, M.K., Bae, E.Y., Choi, S.E., Lee, E.K., Lee, T.J., 2012. Eliciting public preference for health-care resource allocation in South Korea. Value in Health 15, Suppl-4.
Linley, W.G., Hughes, D.A., 2013. Societal views on NICE, cancer drugs fund and value-based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: a cross-sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great Britain. Health Economics 22, 948-964.
Norman, R., Hall, J., Street, D., Viney, R., 2013. Efficiency and equity: a stated preference approach. Health Economics 22, 568-581.
Richardson, J., Sinha, K., Iezzi, A., Maxwell, A., 2012. Maximising health versus sharing: measuring preferences for the allocation of the health budget. Social Science & Medicine 75, 1351-1361.
Schwappach, D.L., 2002. The equivalence of numbers: the social value of avoiding health decline: an experimental Web-based study. BMC Medical Informatics & Decision Making 2, 3.
Schwappach, D.L., 2003. Does it matter who you are or what you gain? An experimental study of preferences for resource allocation. Health Economics 12, 255-267.
Schwappach, D.L., 2005. Are preferences for equality a matter of perspective? Medical Decision Making 25, 449-459.
Schwappach, D.L., Strasmann, T.J., 2006. "Quick and dirty numbers"? The reliability of a stated-preference technique for the measurement of preferences for resource allocation. Journal of Health Economics 25, 432-448.
Singh, J., Lord, J., Longworth, L., Orr, S., McGarry, T., Sheldon, R., Buxton, M., 2012. Does responsibility affect the public's valuation of health care interventions? A relative valuation approach to health care safety. Value in Health 15, 690-698.
van der Wulp I. van den Hout WB. de Vries M. Stiggelbout AM. van den Akker-van Marle EM., 2012. Societal preferences for standard health insurance coverage in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2, e001021.
Werntoft, E., Edberg, A.K., 2009. The views of physicians and politicians concerning age-related prioritisation in healthcare. Journal of Health Organization & Management 23, 38-52.
The papers reviewedSocietal perspective?
Ex ante Ex post
Clearly societal 0 7
Potentially personal 0 5
This poster was prepared for HESG / GCU June 2014, with thanks to Anna Cantrell for conducting the literature search.
Acknowledgements
