IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v370y2025ics0277953624007020.html

Corrigendum to ‘Does the UK-public's aversion to inequalities in health differ by group-labelling and health-gain type? A choice-experiment’ [Soc. Sci. Med. Volume 269, January 2021, 113573]

Author

Listed:
  • McNamara, Simon
  • Tsuchiya, Aki
  • Holmes, John

Abstract

Public health policy has two primary aims: promoting population health and reducing health inequalities. When these aims conflict, policy-makers must determine the relative importance to place on each in decision-making. We conducted a computer-based, face-to-face, choice-experiment to explore how the UK-public think government should act in these situations; and to explore how “inequality-aversion” may differ depending on the groups between which a health inequality exists and type of health an intervention provides. We tested three hypotheses: (1) the UK-public are more averse to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups than they are to inequalities in health between neutrally labelled groups; (2) this difference is, at least in part, driven by the role non-health information plays in determining aversion to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups; and (3) the UK-public are more willing to prioritise groups with lower lifetime health over groups with higher lifetime health if an intervention improves life-expectancy than if it improves quality-of-life. Eighty people participated in Sheffield and Hull in May/June 2019. Each participant completed three Person-Trade-Off exercises between interventions that would improve population health and reduce health inequalities, or improve population health by a larger amount but increase health inequalities. Participants were randomised to exercises involving scenarios with socioeconomic groups or neutrally-labelled groups, and each answered questions about three health-benefit types: increased life-expectancy; pain-relief; and mobility-improvement. Following the exercises, participants provided rationales for their selections. Respondents were (1) more averse to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups than neutrally labelled groups. Participant rationales suggest (2) this divergence is partly motivated by factors other than health: for example, financial inequality between socioeconomic gro
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • McNamara, Simon & Tsuchiya, Aki & Holmes, John, 2025. "Corrigendum to ‘Does the UK-public's aversion to inequalities in health differ by group-labelling and health-gain type? A choice-experiment’ [Soc. Sci. Med. Volume 269, January 2021, 113573]," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 370(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:370:y:2025:i:c:s0277953624007020
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117248
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953624007020
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117248?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 look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 25th January 2021
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2021-01-25 12:01:17

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Robson, Matthew & O’Donnell, Owen & Van Ourti, Tom, 2024. "Aversion to health inequality — Pure, income-related and income-caused," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    3. Da Costa, Shaun & O’Donnell, Owen & Van Gestel, Raf, 2024. "Distributionally sensitive measurement and valuation of population health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    4. Matthew Robson & Tim Doran & Owen O’Donnell & Tom Van Ourti, 2025. "Do social preferences explain health inequality aversion?," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 23(3), pages 933-956, September.
    5. Walbaum, Magdalena & Jana-Valencia, Nicolas, 2025. "Aggregate distributional cost-effectiveness analysis of biologics for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis in Chile," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 128046, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. David A Comerford & Angela Tufte-Hewett & Emma K Bridger, 2024. "Public preferences to trade-off gains in total health for health equality: Discrepancies between an abstract scenario versus the real-world scenario presented by COVID-19," Rationality and Society, , vol. 36(1), pages 66-92, February.

    More about this item

    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:eee:socmed:v:370:y:2025:i:c:s0277953624007020. 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: 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.