How Robust Are Value Judgments of Health Inequality Aversion? Testing for Framing and Cognitive Effects

被引:14
作者
Ali, Shehzad [1 ,2 ]
Tsuchiya, Aki [3 ,4 ]
Asaria, Miqdad [1 ]
Cookson, Richard [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ York, Ctr Hlth Econ, ARRC Bldg,Rm 208D,Fl 2, York YO10 5DD, Heslington, England
[2] Univ York, Dept Hlth Sci, ARRC Bldg,Rm 208D,Fl 2, York YO10 5DD, Heslington, England
[3] Univ Sheffield, Sch Hlth & Related Res ScHARR, Sheffield, S Yorkshire, England
[4] Univ Sheffield, Dept Econ, Sheffield, S Yorkshire, England
基金
英国惠康基金;
关键词
health equity; patient preference; value of life; social values; cost-effectiveness analysis; SOCIETAL PREFERENCES; CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; STATE VALUATION; CARE; MONOTONICITY; PROGRAMS; QUALITY; EQUITY; MODE; GAIN;
D O I
10.1177/0272989X17700842
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background. Empirical studies have found that members of the public are inequality averse and value health gains for disadvantaged groups with poor health many times more highly than gains for better off groups. However, these studies typically use abstract scenarios that involve unrealistically large reductions in health inequality and face-to-face survey administration. It is not known how robust these findings are to more realistic scenarios or anonymous online survey administration. Methods. This study aimed to test the robustness of questionnaire estimates of inequality aversion by comparing the following: 1) small versus unrealistically large health inequality reductions, 2) population-level versus individual-level descriptions of health inequality reductions, 3) concrete versus abstract intervention scenarios, and 4) online versus face-to-face mode of administration. Fifty-two members of the public participated in face-to-face discussion groups, while 83 members of the public completed an online survey. Participants were given a questionnaire instrument with different scenario descriptions for eliciting aversion to social inequality in health. Results. The median respondent was inequality averse under all scenarios. Scenarios involving small rather than unrealistically large health gains made little difference in terms of inequality aversion, as did population-level rather than individual-level scenarios. However, the proportion expressing extreme inequality aversion fell 19 percentage points when considering a specific health intervention scenario rather than an abstract scenario and was 11 to 21 percentage points lower among online public respondents compared with the discussion group. Conclusions. Our study suggests that both concrete scenarios and online administration reduce the proportion expressing extreme inequality aversion but still yield median responses that imply substantial health inequality aversion.
引用
收藏
页码:635 / 646
页数:12
相关论文
共 30 条
[21]   EFFICIENCY AND EQUITY: A STATED PREFERENCE APPROACH [J].
Norman, Richard ;
Hall, Jane ;
Street, Deborah ;
Viney, Rosalie .
HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2013, 22 (05) :568-581
[22]   Does mode of administration matter? Comparison of online and face-to-face administration of a time trade-off task [J].
Norman, Richard ;
King, Madeleine T. ;
Clarke, Dushyant ;
Viney, Rosalie ;
Cronin, Paula ;
Street, Deborah .
QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2010, 19 (04) :499-508
[23]   A note on eliciting distributive preferences for health [J].
Olsen, JA .
JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2000, 19 (04) :541-550
[24]  
Park A, 30 NATCEN SOC RES
[25]   Measuring the social importance of concentration or dispersion of individual health benefits [J].
Rodríguez-Míguez, E ;
Pinto-Prades, JL .
HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2002, 11 (01) :43-53
[26]   Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life [J].
Rowen, Donna ;
Brazier, John ;
Mukuria, Clara ;
Keetharuth, Anju ;
Hole, Arne Risa ;
Tsuchiya, Aki ;
Whyte, Sophie ;
Shackley, Phil .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2016, 36 (02) :210-222
[27]   Does it matter who you are or what you gain? An experimental study of preferences for resource allocation [J].
Schwappach, DLB .
HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2003, 12 (04) :255-267
[28]   NICE's social value judgements about equity in health and health care [J].
Shah, Koonal K. ;
Cookson, Richard ;
Culyer, Anthony J. ;
Littlejohns, Peter .
HEALTH ECONOMICS POLICY AND LAW, 2013, 8 (02) :145-165
[29]   Choosing vs. allocating: discrete choice experiments and constant-sum paired comparisons for the elicitation of societal preferences [J].
Skedgel, Chris D. ;
Wailoo, Allan J. ;
Akehurst, Ron L. .
HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2015, 18 (05) :1227-1240
[30]   EQUALITY OF WHAT IN HEALTH? DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN OUTCOME EGALITARIANISM AND GAIN EGALITARIANISM [J].
Tsuchiya, Aki ;
Dolan, Paul .
HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2009, 18 (02) :147-159