IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ohe/conres/001576.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do Respondents Completing Abstract, Hypothetical Priority-setting Exercises Agree With the Policy Implications of Their Choices?

Author

Listed:
  • Koonal Shah;Nancy Devlin;Paul Barnsley;Amanda Cole

Abstract

Stated preference studies are increasingly being used to understand people’s views about the relative importance of different criteria for making health care priority setting decisions. Stated preference studies are increasingly being used to understand people’s views about the relative importance of different criteria for making health care priority setting decisions. Such studies typically involve presenting survey respondents with priority setting scenarios involving hypothetical patients and medical conditions. In order to minimise bias, researchers usually present the scenarios in an abstract manner and provide limited descriptive information. This has led to concerns that the answers given by respondents do not reflect those that they might have given had they been better informed about the nature of the hypothetical medical conditions and the patients affected by them. A further concern associated with public preference studies is that it is unclear whether the respondents would agree with the policy implications of their responses to the abstract choice tasks. The extent to which respondents in social preference studies agree with researchers’ interpretations of their responses has received only limited attention in the health economics literature to date. This study examines the impact of alternative presentations of hypothetical priority setting scenarios, and the extent to which the study respondents agree with the policy implications of their responses to stated preference tasks. A survey was designed to elicit data on people’s preferences regarding health care priority setting. The questions formed the basis for two focus group discussions and a self-completion Internet survey. The results show that people’s stated preferences regarding hypothetical scenarios are influenced by the way in which the information is presented to them. They also show that people do not always agree with the policy implications of their responses to the stated preference tasks.

Suggested Citation

  • Koonal Shah;Nancy Devlin;Paul Barnsley;Amanda Cole, 2015. "Do Respondents Completing Abstract, Hypothetical Priority-setting Exercises Agree With the Policy Implications of Their Choices?," Contract Research 001576, Office of Health Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ohe:conres:001576
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ohe.org/publications/do-respondents-completing-abstract-hypothetical-priority-setting-exercises-agree-policy/attachment-408-respondent-hypothetical-priority-setting-exercises-and-policy-implications-2/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Do Respondents Completing Abstract; Hypothetical Priority-setting Exercises Agree With the Policy Implications of Their Choices?;

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ohe:conres:001576. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Publications Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ohecouk.html .

    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.