IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v19y1999i4p482-486.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Whose Preferences Count?

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Dolan

Abstract

An important consideration when choosing how to allocate health care resources is the improvements in patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) that alternative allocations generate. There is considerable debate about whose preferences should be used when measuring and valuing HRQoL. This debate has usually been in terms of whether the values of patients or the general public are the most appropriate. It is argued in this paper that this is a false dichotomy that does not facilitate understanding of empirical evidence. Nor, more importantly, does it address one of the most important issues in the debate about whose preferences count, that is, whether the fact that many people adapt to poor health states should be taken into account when ascribing values to those states. A conceptual framework is developed to facilitate a more fruitful discussion of the issues relating to the question of whose preferences should count. Key words: health-related quality of life; patients' preferences; resource allocation; elicitation methods. (Med Decis Making 1999; 19:482-486)

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Dolan, 1999. "Whose Preferences Count?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(4), pages 482-486, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:19:y:1999:i:4:p:482-486
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900416
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9901900416
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9901900416?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hadorn, David C., 1991. "The role of public values in setting health care priorities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 773-781, January.
    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. Julie Ratcliffe, 2000. "Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 137-148, March.
    2. Busschbach, Jan J. V. & McDonnell, Joseph & Essink-Bot, Marie-Louise & van Hout, Ben A., 1999. "Estimating parametric relationships between health description and health valuation with an application to the EuroQol EQ-5D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 551-570, October.
    3. Peter C. Smith & Andrew Street, 2012. "Concepts and Challenges in Measuring the Performance of Health Care Organizations," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 32, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Richardson, Jeff & McKie, John, 2005. "Empiricism, ethics and orthodox economic theory: what is the appropriate basis for decision-making in the health sector?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 265-275, January.
    5. Albert Weale, 2010. "Political Theory and Practical Public Reasoning," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(2), pages 266-281, March.
    6. Hagihara, Akihito & Murakami, Masayoshi & Miller, Alan S. & Nobutomo, Koichi, 1997. "Association between attitudes toward health promotion and opinions regarding organ transplants in Japan," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 157-170, November.
    7. Doherty, Jane E. & Rispel, Laetitia C., 1995. "From conflict to cohesion: Involving stakeholders in policy research," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 409-415.
    8. Ogorevc, Marko & Murovec, Nika & Fernandez, Natacha Bolanos & Rupel, Valentina Prevolnik, 2019. "Questioning the differences between general public vs. patient based preferences towards EQ-5D-5L defined hypothetical health states," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 166-172.
    9. Caroline M. Vass & Katherine Payne, 2017. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform the Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines: Are We Ready Yet?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(9), pages 859-866, September.
    10. Peter A. Ubel & George Loewenstein, 1996. "Public Perceptions of the Importance of Prognosis in Allocating Transplantable Livers to Children," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(3), pages 234-241, August.
    11. World Bank, 2015. "Bulgaria Health Financing," World Bank Publications - Reports 22964, The World Bank Group.
    12. G. Ardine De Wit & Jan J.V. Busschbach & Frank Th. De Charro, 2000. "Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 109-126, March.
    13. Erik Nord, 1994. "The qaly—a measure of social value rather than individual utility?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(2), pages 89-93, March.
    14. Menon, Devidas & Stafinski, Tania & Martin, Douglas, 2007. "Priority-setting for healthcare: Who, how, and is it fair?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(2-3), pages 220-233, December.
    15. Sandoval, Guillermo A. & Barnsley, Jan & Berta, Whitney & Murray, Michael & Brown, Adalsteinn D., 2007. "Sustained public preferences on hospital performance across Canadian provinces," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(2-3), pages 246-256, October.
    16. Brousselle, Astrid & Lessard, Chantale, 2011. "Economic evaluation to inform health care decision-making: Promise, pitfalls and a proposal for an alternative path," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(6), pages 832-839, March.
    17. Versteegh, M.M. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2016. "Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 66-74.
    18. Ubel, Peter A. & Loewenstein, George, 1995. "The efficacy and equity of retransplantation: an experimental survey of public attitudes," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 145-151, November.

    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:sae:medema:v:19:y:1999:i:4:p:482-486. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.