IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v277y2021ics0277953621002240.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public values and plurality in health priority setting: What to do when people disagree and why we should care about reasons as well as choices

Author

Listed:
  • Baker, Rachel
  • Mason, Helen
  • McHugh, Neil
  • Donaldson, Cam

Abstract

‘What does ‘The Public’ think?’ is a question often posed by researchers and policy makers, and public values are regularly invoked to justify policy decisions. Over time there has been a participatory turn in the social and health sciences, including health technology assessment and priority setting in health, towards citizen participation such that public policies reflect public values. It is one thing to agree that public values are important, however, and another to agree on how public values should be elicited, deliberated upon and integrated into decision-making. Surveys of public values rarely deliver unanimity, and preference heterogeneity, or plurality, is to be expected.

Suggested Citation

  • Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & McHugh, Neil & Donaldson, Cam, 2021. "Public values and plurality in health priority setting: What to do when people disagree and why we should care about reasons as well as choices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:277:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621002240
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113892
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621002240
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113892?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. Chalkidou, Kalipso, 2012. "Evidence and values: paying for end-of-life drugs in the British NHS," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(4), pages 393-409, October.
    2. Lehoux, P. & Daudelin, G. & Abelson, J., 2012. "The unbearable lightness of citizens within public deliberation processes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(12), pages 1843-1850.
    3. Pinto-Prades, Jose-Luis & Sánchez-Martínez, Fernando-Ignacio & Corbacho, Belen & Baker, Rachel, 2014. "Valuing QALYs at the end of life," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 5-14.
    4. Craig Mitton & Brayan V. Seixas & Stuart Peacock & Michael Burgess & Stirling Bryan, 2019. "Health Technology Assessment as Part of a Broader Process for Priority Setting and Resource Allocation," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 573-576, October.
    5. John Parkinson, 2003. "Legitimacy Problems in Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51(1), pages 180-196, March.
    6. Sorenson, Corinna, 2012. "Valuing end-of-life care in the United States: the case of new cancer drugs," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(4), pages 411-430, October.
    7. Shah, Koonal K. & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan J., 2015. "Valuing health at the end of life: A stated preference discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 48-56.
    8. Lancsar, Emily & Wildman, John & Donaldson, Cam & Ryan, Mandy & Baker, Rachel, 2011. "Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 466-478, March.
    9. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Clara Mukuria & Anju Keetharuth & Arne Risa Hole & Aki Tsuchiya & Sophie Whyte & Phil Shackley, 2016. "Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 210-222, February.
    10. Arroyos-Calvera, Danae & Covey, Judith & Loomes, Graham & McDonald, Rebecca, 2019. "The efficiency-equity trade-off, self-interest, and moral principles in health and safety valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 1-1.
    11. 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.
    12. Cookson, Richard & Mirelman, Andrew J. & Griffin, Susan & Asaria, Miqdad & Dawkins, Bryony & Norheim, Ole Frithjof & Verguet, Stéphane & J. Culyer, Anthony, 2017. "Using cost-effectiveness analysis to address health equity concerns," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 101230, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Stirling Bryan & Craig Mitton & Cam Donaldson, 2014. "Breaking The Addiction To Technology Adoption," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4), pages 379-383, April.
    14. Mark Pennington & Rachel Baker & Werner Brouwer & Helen Mason & Dorte Gyrd Hansen & Angela Robinson & Cam Donaldson & the EuroVaQ Team, 2015. "Comparing WTP Values of Different Types of QALY Gain Elicited from the General Public," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 280-293, March.
    15. Ruger, Jennifer Prah, 2012. "Health and Social Justice," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199653133, Decembrie.
    16. Paul Peter Schneider, 2021. "Social tariffs and democratic choice—Do population‐based health state values reflect the will of the people?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 104-112, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Schoon, Rebecca & Chi, Chunhuei, 2022. "Integrating Citizens Juries and Discrete Choice Experiments: Methodological issues in the measurement of public values in healthcare priority setting," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 309(C).
    2. Ian Ross & Giulia Greco & Charles Opondo & Zaida Adriano & Rassul Nala & Joe Brown & Robert Dreibelbis & Oliver Cumming, 2022. "Measuring and valuing broader impacts in public health: Development of a sanitation‐related quality of life instrument in Maputo, Mozambique," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 466-480, March.
    3. Hausman, Daniel M., 2023. "Eliciting preferences and respecting values: Why ask?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 320(C).
    4. 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).

    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. Hansen, Lise Desireé & Kjær, Trine, 2019. "Disentangling public preferences for health gains at end-of-life: Further evidence of no support of an end-of-life premium," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    2. 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).
    3. Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2018. "Is there additional value attached to health gains at the end of life? A revisit," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 71-75, January.
    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. 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.
    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. Fischer, Barbara & Telser, Harry & Zweifel, Peter & von Wyl, Viktor & Beck, Konstantin & Weber, Andreas, 2023. "The value of a QALY towards the end of life and its determinants: Experimental evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    8. McHugh, Neil & van Exel, Job & Mason, Helen & Godwin, Jon & Collins, Marissa & Donaldson, Cam & Baker, Rachel, 2018. "Are life-extending treatments for terminal illnesses a special case? Exploring choices and societal viewpoints," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 61-69.
    9. Mason, Helen & van Exel, Job & Baker, Rachel & Brouwer, Werner & Donaldson, Cam, 2016. "From representing views to representativeness of views: Illustrating a new (Q2S) approach in the context of health care priority setting in nine European countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 205-213.
    10. Chamberlain, Charlotte & Owen-Smith, Amanda & MacKichan, Fiona & Donovan, Jenny L. & Hollingworth, William, 2019. "“What’s fair to an individual is not always fair to a population”: A qualitative study of patients and their health professionals using the Cancer Drugs Fund," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(8), pages 706-712.
    11. Jorge Barros-Garcia-Imhof & Andrés Jiménez-Alfonso & Inés Gómez-Acebo & María Fernández-Ortiz & Jéssica Alonso-Molero & Javier Llorca & Alejandro Gonzalez-Castro & Trinidad Dierssen-Sotos, 2022. "Perception of Medical Students on the Need for End-of-Life Care: A Q-Methodology Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-16, June.
    12. Herrera-Araujo, Daniel & Hammitt, James K. & Rheinberger, Christoph M., 2020. "Theoretical bounds on the value of improved health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    13. S. Olofsson & U.-G. Gerdtham & L. Hultkrantz & U. Persson, 2018. "Measuring the end-of-life premium in cancer using individual ex ante willingness to pay," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 807-820, July.
    14. Bengt Jönsson & Grace Hampson & Jonathan Michaels & Adrian Towse & J.-Matthias Graf Schulenburg & Olivier Wong, 2019. "Advanced therapy medicinal products and health technology assessment principles and practices for value-based and sustainable healthcare," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 427-438, April.
    15. Richard Cookson & Shehzad Ali & Aki Tsuchiya & Miqdad Asaria, 2018. "E‐learning and health inequality aversion: A questionnaire experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(11), pages 1754-1771, November.
    16. Al-Janabi, Hareth & Wittenberg, Eve & Donaldson, Cam & Brouwer, Werner, 2022. "The relative value of carer and patient quality of life: A person trade-off (PTO) study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    17. Christian R. C. Kouakou & Thomas G. Poder, 2022. "Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: a systematic review with meta-regression," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(2), pages 277-299, March.
    18. Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte, 2017. "Is there additional value attached to health gains at the end-of-life? A re-visit," DaCHE discussion papers 2017:2, University of Southern Denmark, Dache - Danish Centre for Health Economics.
    19. Smeele, Nicholas V.R. & Chorus, Caspar G. & Schermer, Maartje H.N. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2023. "Towards machine learning for moral choice analysis in health economics: A literature review and research agenda," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    20. 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.

    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:socmed:v:277:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621002240. 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 (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.