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
  • [11] Tsuchiya A(2004)QALY maximisation and people’ s preferences: a methodological review of the literature Health Econ. 14 197-52
  • [12] Asaria M(2015)Attributes and weights in health care priority setting: a systematic review of what counts and to what extent Soc. Sci. Med. 146 41-50
  • [13] Cookson R(2018)Valuing health at the end of life: a review of stated preference studies in the social sciences literature Soc. Sci. Med. 204 39-288
  • [14] Dolan P(2014)Concerns for severity in priority setting in health care: a review of trade-off data in preference studies and implications for societal willingness to pay for a QALY Health Policy (New York). 116 281-84
  • [15] Tsuchiya A(2009)Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: a review of the literature Health Policy (New York). 93 77-185
  • [16] Tsuchiya A(2019)Incorporating inequality aversion in health-care priority setting Soc Justice Res. 32 172-582
  • [17] Dolan P(2006)Use of information-seeking strategies for developing systematic reviews and engaging in evidence-based practice: the application of traditional and comprehensive Pearl Growing: a review Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 41 567-714
  • [18] Cookson R(2005)Health priorities and public preferences: the relative importance of past health experience and future health prospects J. Health Econ. 24 703-1426
  • [19] Drummond M(2012)Public preferences for responsibility versus public preferences for reducing inequalities Health Econ. (UK) 21 1416-581
  • [20] Weatherly H(2013)Efficiency and equity: a stated preference appoach Health Econ. 22 568-1066