Quantifying public preferences for healthcare priorities in Taiwan through an integrated citizens jury and discrete choice experiment

被引:2
作者
Schoon, Rebecca [1 ,3 ,4 ]
Chi, Chunhuei [1 ]
Liu, Tsai-Ching [2 ]
机构
[1] Oregon State Univ, Coll Publ Hlth & Human Sci, Int Hlth Program, 13 Milam Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331 USA
[2] Natl Taipei Univ, Dept Publ Finance, 151 Univ Rd, New Taipei City 23741, Taiwan
[3] Pacific Univ, Dept Publ Hlth UC A165, 2043 Coll Way, Forest Grove, OR 97116 USA
[4] Pacific Univ, Dept Publ Hlth UC A165, 2043 Coll Way, Forest Grove, OR 97116 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Public values; Priority setting; Discrete choice experiment; Citizens jury; Health economics; Empirical ethics; Public deliberation; Preference elicitation; RESOURCE-ALLOCATION; DECISION-MAKING; PARTICIPATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115404
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Priority setting is a critical process for national healthcare systems that need to allocate limited resources across unlimited healthcare demands. In recent decades, health policymakers have identified the need to combine technical dimensions of priority setting with political dimensions relating to community values. A range of methods for engaging the public in priority setting has been developed, yet there is no consensus around the most effective methodology. A 2014 paper proposed the integration of two methods currently used for soliciting public preferences around health care services: i) an individual survey instrument, Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs) and ii) Citizen Juries (CJs), a group-based model that incorporates education and deliberative dialogue. This pilot study is among the first to empirically test this integrated method to assess its value across two domains: does the CJ process alter participant preferences and are the consensus values of the CJ captured by the individualistic DCE? The two-part, mixed methods study was administered in Taipei, Taiwan in August of 2016. Twenty-seven participants completed a DCE as a baseline pre-test, ranking a set of attributes in terms of importance for future resource allocation under Taiwan's National Health Insurance System. Twenty of the participants next took part in the integrated CJ-DCE method, which consisted of education and facilitated dialogue through a CJ, followed by retaking the DCE survey. Participant preferences changed after undergoing the CJ process and these new, group-based preferences were reflected in the second DCE, meaning participants did not revert to their original individualistic preferences. The results of this study demonstrate that the integrated CJ-DCE method adds value in allowing an ethically communitarian set of values to be developed and captured via an individualistic methodology. Further testing is needed to investigate the reliability of our findings and how it may be implemented to maximize public acceptance.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 41 条
  • [1] Amaya-Amaya M, 2008, ECON NON-MARK GOOD, V11, P13
  • [2] Resource Allocation and Priority Setting in Health Care: A Multi-criteria Decision Analysis Problem of Value?
    Angelis, Aris
    Kanavos, Panos
    Montibeller, Gilberto
    [J]. GLOBAL POLICY, 2017, 8 : 76 - 83
  • [3] Public values and plurality in health priority setting: What to do when people disagree and why we should care about reasons as well as choices
    Baker, Rachel
    Mason, Helen
    McHugh, Neil
    Donaldson, Cam
    [J]. SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2021, 277
  • [4] Bryant P., 2017, SHARED FUTURE
  • [5] Canback Global Income Distribution Database, 2015, FIG NO TALW REG
  • [6] Participatory Budgeting in Australian Local Government: An Initial Assessment and Critical Issues
    Christensen, Helen E.
    Grant, Bligh
    [J]. AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, 2016, 75 (04) : 457 - 475
  • [7] Citizen participation in health decision-making: Past experience and future prospects
    Church, J
    Saunders, D
    Wanke, M
    Pong, R
    Spooner, C
    Dorgan, M
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY, 2002, 23 (01) : 12 - 32
  • [8] Accountability for reasonableness - Establishing a fair process for priority setting is easier than agreeing on principles
    Daniels, N
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2000, 321 (7272): : 1300 - 1301
  • [9] Gregory Judy, 2008, Aust New Zealand Health Policy, V5, P16, DOI 10.1186/1743-8462-5-16
  • [10] From efficacy to equity: Literature review of decision criteria for resource allocation and healthcare decisionmaking
    Lalla Aïda Guindo
    Monika Wagner
    Rob Baltussen
    Donna Rindress
    Janine van Til
    Paul Kind
    Mireille M Goetghebeur
    [J]. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 10 (1)