IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v126y2015icp128-137.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public views on principles for health care priority setting: Findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology

Author

Listed:
  • van Exel, Job
  • Baker, Rachel
  • Mason, Helen
  • Donaldson, Cam
  • Brouwer, Werner

Abstract

Resources available to the health care sector are finite and typically insufficient to fulfil all the demands for health care in the population. Decisions must be made about which treatments to provide. Relatively little is known about the views of the general public regarding the principles that should guide such decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • van Exel, Job & Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & Donaldson, Cam & Brouwer, Werner, 2015. "Public views on principles for health care priority setting: Findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 128-137.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:126:y:2015:i:c:p:128-137
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.12.023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953614008314
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Stenner, Paul H. D. & Cooper, Deborah & Skevington, Suzanne M., 2003. "Putting the Q into quality of life; the identification of subjective constructions of health-related quality of life using Q methodology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(11), pages 2161-2172, December.
    2. Nord, Erik, 2005. "Concerns for the worse off: fair innings versus severity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 257-263, January.
    3. E. Wetering & E. Stolk & N. Exel & W. Brouwer, 2013. "Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 107-115, February.
    4. Litva, Andrea & Coast, Joanna & Donovan, Jenny & Eyles, John & Shepherd, Michael & Tacchi, Jo & Abelson, Julia & Morgan, Kieran, 2002. "'The public is too subjective': public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 54(12), pages 1825-1837, June.
    5. Anand, Paul & Wailoo, Allan, 2000. "Utilities versus Rights to Publicly Provided Goods: Arguments and Evidence from Health Care Rationing," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 67(268), pages 543-577, November.
    6. Steven Brown, 2006. "A Match Made in Heaven: A Marginalized Methodology for Studying the Marginalized," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 361-382, June.
    7. Donaldson, Cam & Atkinson, Ann & Bond, John & Wright, Ken, 1988. "Should QALYs be programme-specific?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 239-257, September.
    8. Alan Williams, 1998. "Medicine, economics, ethics and the NHS: a clash of cultures?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(7), pages 565-568.
    9. ALan Williams, 1988. "Priority setting in public and private health care: a guide through the ideological jungle," Working Papers 036chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    10. Alan Williams, 1997. "Intergenerational Equity: An Exploration of the 'Fair Innings' Argument," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(2), pages 117-132.
    11. van Exel, N.J.A. & de Graaf, G. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2006. ""Everyone dies, so you might as well have fun!" Attitudes of Dutch youths about their health lifestyle," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(10), pages 2628-2639, November.
    12. Eccleston, Chris & De C. Williams, Amanda C. & Rogers, Wendy Stainton, 1997. "Patients' and professionals' understandings of the causes of chronic pain: Blame, responsibility and identity protection," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 699-709, September.
    13. Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
    14. W.B.F. Brouwer & F.T. Schut, 1999. "Priority care for employees: A blessing in disguise?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 65-73.
    15. Wiseman, V. & Mooney, G. & Berry, G. & Tang, K. C., 2003. "Involving the general public in priority setting: experiences from Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(5), pages 1001-1012, March.
    16. Smith, Richard D. & Richardson, Jeff, 2005. "Can we estimate the `social' value of a QALY?: Four core issues to resolve," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 77-84, September.
    17. 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.
    18. Robinson, Angela & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Bacon, Philomena & Baker, Rachel & Pennington, Mark & Donaldson, Cam, 2013. "Estimating a WTP-based value of a QALY: The ‘chained’ approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 92-104.
    19. 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.
    20. Wolfgang Greiner & J.-Matthias Schulenburg, 2010. "HTA in Germany: very special and specific," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(1), pages 1-3, February.
    21. Martin Buxton & James Chambers, 2011. "What values do the public want their health care systems to use in evaluating technologies?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(4), pages 285-288, August.
    22. 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.
    23. Rachel Baker & John Wildman & Helen Mason & Cam Donaldson, 2014. "Q‐Ing For Health—A New Approach To Eliciting The Public'S Views On Health Care Resource Allocation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 283-297, March.
    24. Risdon, Andrea & Eccleston, Chris & Crombez, Geert & McCracken, Lance, 2003. "How can we learn to live with pain? A Q-methodological analysis of the diverse understandings of acceptance of chronic pain," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 375-386, January.
    25. Baker, Rachel Mairi, 2006. "Economic rationality and health and lifestyle choices for people with diabetes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(9), pages 2341-2353, November.
    26. Geert Hofstede, 1995. "Insurance as a Product of National Values*," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 20(4), pages 423-429, October.
    27. Weinstein, Milton C., 1988. "A QALY is a QALY is a QALY -- Or is it?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 289-290, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Method of the month: Q methodology
      by helenmasongcuacuk in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2018-02-07 07:00:55

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. repec:eee:socmed:v:198:y:2018:i:c:p:61-69 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:spr:sochwe:v:49:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s00355-017-1053-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Ahlert, Marlies & Breyer, Friedrich & Schwettmann, Lars, 2016. "How you ask is what you get: Framing effects in willingness-to-pay for a QALY," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 40-48.
    4. repec:eee:socmed:v:181:y:2017:i:c:p:158-167 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. 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.

    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:126:y:2015:i:c:p:128-137. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.