IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v57y2003i4p687-696.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring people's preferences regarding ageism in health: some methodological issues and some fresh evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Tsuchiya, Aki
  • Dolan, Paul
  • Shaw, Rebecca

Abstract

In this paper, we outline the three main concepts of 'ageism'; health maximisation ageism, productivity ageism, and fair innings ageism. We provide a methodological overview of the existing empirical literature on people's preferences regarding age and classify these studies according to the types of questions that have been asked. We consider some of the methodological issues involved in eliciting preferences regarding ageism and propose using a fixed duration of benefit rather than, as some studies have done, a benefit that lasts for a full lifetime. Informed by this discussion, we present the results from our own empirical study, carried out in the UK, which combines qualitative and quantitative methods to explore the reasons people have for choosing one age over another. In so doing, we are able to consider the extent to which respondents might bring extraneous factors to bear on their responses and/or disregard relevant information (such as that relating to the fixed nature of the benefit). The results suggest that people are broadly in favour of giving priority to younger over older people, based on arguments relating to both productivity ageism and fair innings ageism. However, respondents appear to assume that a benefit would last for a full lifetime (even if they are told to assume a fixed benefit), unless they are asked to consider a 'full-life' benefit first. This particular framing effect has important implications for preference elicitation studies, suggesting that if you want people to answer the question you have in mind, first ask them the question you think they may have in mind.

Suggested Citation

  • Tsuchiya, Aki & Dolan, Paul & Shaw, Rebecca, 2003. "Measuring people's preferences regarding ageism in health: some methodological issues and some fresh evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 687-696, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:57:y:2003:i:4:p:687-696
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(02)00418-5
    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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. repec:eee:hepoli:v:121:y:2017:i:8:p:913-922 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Mira Johri & Laura J. Damschroder & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Peter A. Ubel, 2005. "The importance of age in allocating health care resources: does intervention-type matter?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(7), pages 669-678.
    4. repec:spr:eujhec:v:18:y:2017:i:6:d:10.1007_s10198-016-0817-y is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Aki Tsuchiya, 2012. "Distributional Judgements in the Context of Economic Evaluation," Chapters,in: The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 38 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Fredrik Carlsson & Dinky Daruvala & Henrik Jaldell, 2012. "Do administrators have the same priorities for risk reductions as the general public?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 79-95, August.
    7. 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.
    8. Joanna Coast & Philip Kinghorn & Paul Mitchell, 2015. "The Development of Capability Measures in Health Economics: Opportunities, Challenges and Progress," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, vol. 8(2), pages 119-126, April.
    9. Ottersen, Trygve & Mbilinyi, Deogratius & Maestad, Ottar & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2008. "Distribution matters: Equity considerations among health planners in Tanzania," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 218-227, February.
    10. Mæstad, Ottar & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2012. "A universal preference for equality in health? Reasons to reconsider properties of applied social welfare functions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(10), pages 1836-1843.
    11. 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.
    12. Hannu Valtonen, 2009. "Patient characteristics and fairness," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(2), pages 179-186, May.
    13. Richardson, Jeff & Sinha, Kompal & Iezzi, Angelo & Maxwell, Aimee, 2012. "Maximising health versus sharing: Measuring preferences for the allocation of the health budget," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(8), pages 1351-1361.
    14. Dolan, Paul & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2005. "Health priorities and public preferences: the relative importance of past health experience and future health prospects," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 703-714, July.

    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:57:y:2003:i:4:p:687-696. 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.

    We have no 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.

    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.