IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v122y2018i6p630-637.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The meaning of severity – do citizenś views correspond to a severity framework based on ethical principles for priority setting?

Author

Listed:
  • Broqvist, Mari
  • Sandman, Lars
  • Garpenby, Peter
  • Krevers, Barbro

Abstract

The importance for governments of establishing ethical principles and criteria for priority setting in line with social values, has been emphasised. The risk of such criteria not being operationalised and instead replaced by de-contextualised priority-setting tools, has been noted. The aim of this article was to compare whether citizenś views are in line with how a criterion derived from parliamentary-decided ethical principles have been interpreted into a framework for evaluating severity levels, in resource allocation situations in Sweden. Interviews were conducted with 15 citizens and analysed by directed content analysis. The results showed that the multi-factorial aspects that participants considered as relevant for evaluating severity, were similar to those used by professionals in the Severity Framework, but added some refinements on what to consider when taking these aspects into account. Findings of similarities, such as in our study, could have the potential to strengthen the internal legitimacy among professionals, to use such a priority-setting tool, and enable politicians to communicate the justifiability of how severity is decided. The study also disclosed new aspects regarding severity, of which some are ethically disputed, implying that our results also reveal the need for ongoing ethical discussions in publicly-funded healthcare systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Broqvist, Mari & Sandman, Lars & Garpenby, Peter & Krevers, Barbro, 2018. "The meaning of severity – do citizenś views correspond to a severity framework based on ethical principles for priority setting?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(6), pages 630-637.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:122:y:2018:i:6:p:630-637
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.04.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851018300812
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.04.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shah, Koonal K., 2009. "Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: A review of the literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 77-84, December.
    2. Franken, Margreet & Stolk, Elly & Scharringhausen, Tessa & de Boer, Anthonius & Koopmanschap, Marc, 2015. "A comparative study of the role of disease severity in drug reimbursement decision making in four European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 195-202.
    3. Jennifer Whitty & Emily Lancsar & Kylie Rixon & Xanthe Golenko & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "A Systematic Review of Stated Preference Studies Reporting Public Preferences for Healthcare Priority Setting," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(4), pages 365-386, December.
    4. Mojtaba Vaismoradi & Hannele Turunen & Terese Bondas, 2013. "Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 398-405, September.
    5. Giacomini, Mita & Kenny, Nuala & DeJean, Deirdre, 2009. "Ethics frameworks in Canadian health policies: Foundation, scaffolding, or window dressing?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 58-71, January.
    6. Daniels, Norman & Sabin, James E., 2008. "Setting Limits Fairly: Learning to share resources for health," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780195325959, Decembrie.
    7. Ham, Chris, 1997. "Priority setting in health care: learning from international experience," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 49-66, October.
    8. Mossialos, Elias & King, Derek, 1999. "Citizens and rationing: analysis of a European survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1-2), pages 75-135, September.
    9. Nord, Erik & Johansen, Rune, 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, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 281-288.
    10. Jeff Richardson & John McKie & Stuart Peacock & Angelo Iezzi, 2011. "Severity as an independent determinant of the social value of a health service," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(2), pages 163-174, April.
    11. McTaggart-Cowan, Helen & Tsuchiya, Aki & O'Cathain, Alicia & Brazier, John, 2011. "Understanding the effect of disease adaptation information on general population values for hypothetical health states," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(11), pages 1904-1912, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Erik Nord & Jose Luis Pinto & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel & Peter Ubel, 1999. "Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 25-39, February.
    2. Wouters, S. & van Exel, N.J.A. & Rohde, K.I.M. & Vromen, J.J. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2017. "Acceptable health and priority weighting: Discussing a reference-level approach using sufficientarian reasoning," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 158-167.
    3. Franken, Margreet & Stolk, Elly & Scharringhausen, Tessa & de Boer, Anthonius & Koopmanschap, Marc, 2015. "A comparative study of the role of disease severity in drug reimbursement decision making in four European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 195-202.
    4. McHugh, Neil & Pinto-Prades, José Luis & Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & Donaldson, Cam, 2020. "Exploring the relative value of end of life QALYs: Are the comparators important?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    5. Gu, Yuanyuan & Lancsar, Emily & Ghijben, Peter & Butler, James RG & Donaldson, Cam, 2015. "Attributes and weights in health care priority setting: A systematic review of what counts and to what extent," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 41-52.
    6. Shah, Koonal K. & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan J., 2018. "Valuing health at the end of life: A review of stated preference studies in the social sciences literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 39-50.
    7. Erik Nord, 2015. "Cost-Value Analysis of Health Interventions: Introduction and Update on Methods and Preference Data," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 89-95, February.
    8. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    9. Peter Martinsson & Emil Persson, 2019. "Physician behavior and conditional altruism: the effects of payment system and uncertain health benefit," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(3), pages 365-387, October.
    10. Ottersen, Trygve & Førde, Reidun & Kakad, Meetali & Kjellevold, Alice & Melberg, Hans Olav & Moen, Atle & Ringard, Ånen & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2016. "A new proposal for priority setting in Norway: Open and fair," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(3), pages 246-251.
    11. McKie, John & Richardson, Jeff, 2017. "Social preferences for prioritizing the treatment of severely ill patients: The relevance of severity, expected benefit, past health and lifetime health," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(8), pages 913-922.
    12. Schoon, Rebecca & Chi, Chunhuei & Liu, Tsai-Ching, 2022. "Quantifying public preferences for healthcare priorities in Taiwan through an integrated citizens jury and discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    13. Matthijs M. Versteegh & Isaac Corro Ramos & Nasuh C. Buyukkaramikli & Amir Ansaripour & Vivian T. Reckers-Droog & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2019. "Severity-Adjusted Probability of Being Cost Effective," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(9), pages 1155-1163, September.
    14. Liesbet Wetering & Job Exel & Ana Bobinac & Werner Brouwer, 2015. "Valuing QALYs in Relation to Equity Considerations Using a Discrete Choice Experiment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(12), pages 1289-1300, December.
    15. Jeremiah Hurley & Emmanouil Mentzakis & Mita Giacomini & Deirdre DeJean & Michel Grignon, 2017. "Non-market resource allocation and the public’s interpretation of need: an empirical investigation in the context of health care," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(1), pages 117-143, June.
    16. Jeff Richardson & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell, 2017. "How important is severity for the evaluation of health services: new evidence using the relative social willingness to pay instrument," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(6), pages 671-683, July.
    17. Erik Nord & Rune Johansen, 2015. "Transforming EQ-5D utilities for use in cost–value analysis of health programs," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(3), pages 313-328, April.
    18. Jeff Richardson & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell, 2018. "Does a patient's health potential affect the social valuation of health services?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-15, April.
    19. Lancsar, Emily & Gu, Yuanyuan & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Butler, Jim & Ratcliffe, Julie & Bulfone, Liliana & Donaldson, Cam, 2020. "The relative value of different QALY types," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    20. Simon McNamara & John Holmes & Abigail K. Stevely & Aki Tsuchiya, 2020. "How averse are the UK general public to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups? A systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(2), pages 275-285, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:122:y:2018:i:6:p:630-637. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.