Does it matter who you are or what you gain? an experimental study of preferences for resource allocation

Health Economics (United Kingdom) - Tập 12 Số 4 - Trang 255-267 - 2003
David Schwappach1
1University Witten /Herdecke, Department of Health Policy and Management, Witten, Germany

Tóm tắt

AbstractUsing an experimental conjoint‐analysis like approach, preferences for resource allocation were studied. An interactive survey was developed which was published in the World Wide Web. A convenience sample of undergraduate students participated in the study. Subjects were confronted with nine pairwise scenarios describing hypothetical patient groups in need of life‐saving treatments. The patient groups presented differed in terms of their health‐related lifestyle, socioeconomic status, age, life expectancy, quality of life after treatment and whether they had received extensive medical care in the past. Participants were asked to allocate a finite budget to each patient group. All attributes used in this study significantly influenced respondents' preferences on how to allocate the budget between patient groups. The general importance of attributes used in the QALY approach is supported by this study with quality of life being a central criterion. The distributional patterns observed were, however, different from those expected when rigorously adhering to the QALY framework: In only a very small fraction of allocations subjects distributed the entire budget strictly on the patient group expecting the highest QALY gain. The vast majority of responders was willing to trade efficiency for a more equal distribution of resources. The approach dsecribed can be used to analyze the importance people place on different attributes in resource allocation decisions and to study preferences for the final distribution of resources. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1046/j.1369-6513.1999.00061.x

10.1016/0168-8510(93)90042-N

10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00222-1

10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00174-4

10.1016/S0167-6296(96)00516-4

10.1016/S0168-8510(99)00043-3

10.2307/3528187

10.1016/S0168-8510(99)00079-2

10.1002/1099-1050(200007)9:5<385::AID-HEC533>3.0.CO;2-W

10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(200003)9:2<137::AID-HEC489>3.0.CO;2-1

10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00268-3

Menzel P, 1990, Strong medicine. The Ethical Rationing of Health Care, 10.1093/oso/9780195057102.001.0001

10.1046/j.1369-6513.1999.00062.x

Kerim‐SadeC CrispinA WasemJ.An External Control of Validity of the German EuroQoL‐5D Questionnaire. Working Paper 6/00. University of Greifswald Institute of Health Care Management Greifswald 2000.

10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002

Williams A, 1997, Being Reasonable about the Economics of Health: Selected Essays by Alan Williams, 322

10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(200001)9:1<57::AID-HEC484>3.0.CO;2-N

10.1017/S0266462300016184

10.1016/S0168-8510(99)00044-5

10.1136/bmj.312.7032.670

NordE StreetA RichardsonJ et al.Maximising Health Benefits Versus Egalitarism: An Australian Survey of Health Benefits. Working Paper No 45. Centre for Health Program Evaluation. Monash University Melbourne 1995.

OlsenJA RichardsonJ MortimerD.Priority Setting in the Public Health Service: Results of An Australian Survey. Technical Report No 9. Centre for Health Program Evaluation. Monash University Melbourne 1998.

RichardsonJ NordE ScottMA.The Importance of Distribution in the Allocation of Health Resources. Working Paper No 10. Centre for Health Program Evaluation. Monash University Melbourne 1996.

10.1017/CBO9780511753831

StataCorp, 2001, Stata Statistical Software: Release 7.0

10.1111/0002-9092.00010

10.3310/hta5050

10.1002/1099-1050(200010)9:7<611::AID-HEC540>3.0.CO;2-R

10.1017/CBO9780511609145

10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(1998110)7:7<595::AID-HEC381>3.0.CO;2-E

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Health Economics (United Kingdom)

Tập 12 Số 4

255-267

Thông tin tác giả