IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v35y2017i8d10.1007_s40273-017-0511-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does the Public Prefer Health Gain for Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review of Public Views on Cancer and its Characteristics

Author

Listed:
  • Liz Morrell

    (University of Oxford)

  • Sarah Wordsworth

    (University of Oxford
    University of Oxford)

  • Sian Rees

    (University of Oxford)

  • Richard Barker

    (University of Oxford)

Abstract

Background Policies such as the Cancer Drugs Fund in England assumed a societal preference to fund cancer care relative to other conditions, even if that resulted in lower health gain for the population overall. Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the evidence for such a preference among the UK public. Methods The MEDLINE, PubMed and Econlit electronic databases were searched for studies relating to preferences for prioritising cancer treatment, as well as studies relating to preferences for the characteristics of cancer (severity of disease, end-of-life). The searches were run in November 2015 and updated in March 2017. Empirical preference studies, studies of public views, and studies in English were included. Results We identified 24 studies relating to cancer preferences. Two directly addressed health trade-offs in the UK—one showed a preference for health gain in cancer, while the other found no such preference but provided results consistent with population health maximisation. Other studies mostly showed support for cancer but did not require a direct health trade-off. Severity and end-of-life searches identified 12 and 6 papers, respectively, which were additional to existing reviews. There is consistent evidence that people give priority to severe illness, while results for end-of-life are mixed. Conclusion We did not find consistent support for a preference for health gains to cancer patients in the context of health maximisation. The evidence base is small and the results are highly sensitive to study design. There remains a contradiction between these findings and the popular view of cancer, and further work is required to determine the features of cancer which contribute to that view.

Suggested Citation

  • Liz Morrell & Sarah Wordsworth & Sian Rees & Richard Barker, 2017. "Does the Public Prefer Health Gain for Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review of Public Views on Cancer and its Characteristics," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(8), pages 793-804, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:35:y:2017:i:8:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0511-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0511-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-017-0511-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-017-0511-7?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. LUYTEN, Jeroen & KESSELS, Roselinde & GOOS, Peter & BEUTELS, Philippe, 2013. "Public preferences for prioritizing preventive and curative health care interventions: A discrete choice experiment," Working Papers 2013032, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    2. W. Kip Viscusi & Joel Huber & Jason Bell, 2014. "Assessing Whether There Is A Cancer Premium For The Value Of A Statistical Life," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4), pages 384-396, April.
    3. Paul Dolan & Rebecca Shaw & Aki Tsuchiya & Alan Williams, 2005. "QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 197-208, February.
    4. Guignet, Dennis & Alberini, Anna, 2013. "Can Property Values Capture Changes in Environmental Health Risks? Evidence from a Stated Preference Study in Italy and the UK," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 156576, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    5. Ubel, Peter A., 1999. "How stable are people's preferences for giving priority to severely ill patients?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(7), pages 895-903, October.
    6. B O'Brien & A Gafni, 1996. "When Do the "Dollars" Make Sense? Toward a Conceptual Framework for Contingent Valuation Studies in Health Care," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 1996-22, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    7. Paul Dolan & Jan Abel Olsen & Paul Menzel & Jeff Richardson, 2003. "An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(7), pages 545-551, July.
    8. Anna Alberini & Milan Ščasný, 2011. "Context and the VSL: Evidence from a Stated Preference Study in Italy and the Czech Republic," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 511-538, August.
    9. Lauraine G. Chestnut & Robert D. Rowe & William S. Breffle, 2012. "Economic Valuation Of Mortality-Risk Reduction: Stated Preference Estimates From The United States And Canada," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 30(3), pages 399-416, July.
    10. Nord, Erik, 1993. "The trade-off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost-value analysis of health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 227-238, August.
    11. Coast, Joanna & Smith, Richard D. & Lorgelly, Paula, 2008. "Welfarism, extra-welfarism and capability: The spread of ideas in health economics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(7), pages 1190-1198, October.
    12. 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.
    13. O'Shea, Eamon & Gannon, Brenda & Kennelly, Brendan, 2008. "Eliciting preferences for resource allocation in mental health care in Ireland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(2-3), pages 359-370, December.
    14. Dennis Guignet & Anna Alberini, 2015. "Can Property Values Capture Changes in Environmental Health Risks? Evidence from a Stated Preference Study in Italy and the United Kingdom," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 501-517, March.
    15. 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.
    16. Gyldmark, Marlene & Morrison, Gwendolyn C., 2001. "Demand for health care in Denmark: results of a national sample survey using contingent valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 1023-1036, October.
    17. Green, Colin, 2009. "Investigating public preferences on 'severity of health' as a relevant condition for setting healthcare priorities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2247-2255, June.
    18. Warren G. Linley & Dyfrig A. Hughes, 2013. "Societal Views On Nice, Cancer Drugs Fund And Value‐Based Pricing Criteria For Prioritising Medicines: A Cross‐Sectional Survey Of 4118 Adults In Great Britain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(8), pages 948-964, August.
    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. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    2. Bae, Eun-Young & Lim, Min Kyoung & Lee, Boram & Bae, Green, 2020. "Who should be given priority for public funding?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(10), pages 1108-1114.
    3. Sara Olofsson & Ulf G. Gerdtham & Lars Hultkrantz & Ulf Persson, 2019. "Dread and Risk Elimination Premium for the Value of a Statistical Life," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(11), pages 2391-2407, November.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. Hannah Christensen & Hareth Al-Janabi & Pierre Levy & Maarten J. Postma & David E. Bloom & Paolo Landa & Oliver Damm & David M. Salisbury & Javier Diez-Domingo & Adrian K. Towse & Paula K. Lorgelly & , 2020. "Economic evaluation of meningococcal vaccines: considerations for the future," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(2), pages 297-309, March.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. Colin Green & Karen Gerard, 2009. "Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 951-976, August.
    11. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Anju Keetharuth & Aki Tsuchiya & Clara Mukuria, 2016. "Comparison of Modes of Administration and Alternative Formats for Eliciting Societal Preferences for Burden of Illness," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 89-104, February.
    12. Mæstad, Ottar & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2009. "Eliciting people's preferences for the distribution of health: A procedure for a more precise estimation of distributional weights," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 570-577, May.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Micaela Pinho & Anabela Botelho, 2018. "Inference Procedures to Quantify the Efficiency–Equality Trade-Off in Health from Stated Preferences: A Case Study in Portugal," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 503-513, August.
    18. 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).
    19. Bae, Eun-Young & Lim, Min Kyoung & Lee, Boram & Bae, Green, 2020. "Who should be given priority for public funding?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(10), pages 1108-1114.
    20. Jeff Richardson & John McKie & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell, 2017. "Age Weights for Health Services Derived from the Relative Social Willingness-to-Pay Instrument," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 239-251, April.

    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:spr:pharme:v:35:y:2017:i:8:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0511-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.