How averse are the UK general public to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups? A systematic review

被引:0
作者
Simon McNamara
John Holmes
Abigail K. Stevely
Aki Tsuchiya
机构
[1] University of Sheffield,School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR)
[2] University of Sheffield,Department of Economics
来源
The European Journal of Health Economics | 2020年 / 21卷
关键词
Health inequality aversion; Social preferences; Equity weighting; Fair innings; Systematic review; I14; D04;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
There is growing interest in the use of “distributionally-sensitive” forms of economic evaluation that capture both the impact of an intervention upon average population health and the distribution of that health amongst the population. This review aims to inform the conduct of distributionally sensitive evaluations in the UK by answering three questions: (1) How averse are the UK public towards inequalities in lifetime health between socioeconomic groups? (2) Does this aversion differ depending upon the type of health under consideration? (3) Are the UK public as averse to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups as they are to inequalities in health between neutrally framed groups? EMBASE, MEDLINE, EconLit, and SSCI were searched for stated preference studies relevant to these questions in October 2017. Of the 2155 potentially relevant papers identified, 15 met the predefined hierarchical eligibility criteria. Seven elicited aversion to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups, and eight elicited aversion between neutrally labelled groups. We find general, although not universal, evidence for aversion to inequalities in lifetime health between socioeconomic groups, albeit with significant variation in the strength of that preference across studies. Second, limited evidence regarding the impact of the type of health upon aversion. Third, some evidence that the UK public are more averse to inequalities in lifetime health when those inequalities are presented in the context of socioeconomic inequality than when presented in isolation.
引用
收藏
页码:275 / 285
页数:10
相关论文
共 140 条
  • [1] Love-Koh J(2015)The social distribution of health: estimating quality-adjusted life expectancy in England Value Health 18 655-662
  • [2] Asaria M(2017)Eliciting the level of health inequality aversion in England Health Econ. 26 1328-1334
  • [3] Cookson R(2017)How robust are value judgments of health inequality aversion? Testing for framing and cognitive effects Med. Decis. Mak. 37 6-2250
  • [4] Griffin S(2011)Determining the parameters in a social welfare function using stated preference data: an application to health Appl. Econ. 43 2241-2503
  • [5] Robson M(2007)Do NHS clinicians and members of the public share the same views about reducing inequalities in health? Soc. Sci. Med. 64 2499-245
  • [6] Asaria M(2009)Explicit incorporation of equity considerations into economic evaluation of public health interventions Health Econ. Policy Law 4 231-290
  • [7] Cookson R(1988)A QALY Is a QALY is a QALY—or is it? J. Health Econ. 7 289-19
  • [8] Tsuchiya A(2016)Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis: a tutorial Med. Decis. Mak 36 8-754
  • [9] Ali S(2015)Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis of health care programmes—a methodological case study of the UK bowel cancer screening programme Health Econ. 24 742-212
  • [10] Ali S(2017)Using cost-effectiveness analysis to address health equity concerns Value Health. 20 206-208