IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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


  • Job van Exel
  • Rachel Baker
  • Helen Mason
  • Cam Donaldson

    (Yunus Centre - Glasgow Caledonian University)

  • Werner Brouwer


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.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Job van Exel & Rachel Baker & Helen Mason & Cam Donaldson & Werner Brouwer, 2015. "Public views on principles for health care priority setting: Findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology," Post-Print hal-01928069, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01928069
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.12.023
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server:

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. 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, November.
    2. Alan Williams, 1997. "Intergenerational Equity: An Exploration of the 'Fair Innings' Argument," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(2), pages 117-132.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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, February.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Nord, Erik, 2005. "Concerns for the worse off: fair innings versus severity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 257-263, January.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    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)


    Blog mentions

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

    Cited by:

    1. Hackert, Mariska Q.N. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Hoefman, Renske J. & van Exel, Job, 2019. "Views of older people in the Netherlands on wellbeing: A Q-methodology study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    2. McHugh, Neil & van Exel, Job & Mason, Helen & Godwin, Jon & Collins, Marissa & Donaldson, Cam & Baker, Rachel, 2018. "Are life-extending treatments for terminal illnesses a special case? Exploring choices and societal viewpoints," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 61-69.
    3. 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.
    4. Persson, Emil & Tinghög, Gustav, 2020. "Opportunity cost neglect in public policy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 301-312.
    5. Hofmann, Bjørn, 2020. "Biases distorting priority setting," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 52-60.
    6. Jeremiah Hurley & Emmanouil Mentzakis & Mita Giacomini & Deirdre DeJean & Michel Grignon, 2017. "Non-market resource allocation and the public’s interpretation of need: an empirical investigation in the context of health care," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(1), pages 117-143, June.
    7. Reckers-Droog, Vivian & Jansen, Maarten & Bijlmakers, Leon & Baltussen, Rob & Brouwer, Werner & van Exel, Job, 2020. "How does participating in a deliberative citizens panel on healthcare priority setting influence the views of participants?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 143-151.
    8. 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.
    9. Helen Mason & Marissa Collins & Neil McHugh & Jon Godwin & Job Van Exel & Cam Donaldson & Rachel Baker, 2018. "Is “end of life” a special case? Connecting Q with survey methods to measure societal support for views on the value of life‐extending treatments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(5), pages 819-831, May.
    10. 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.
    11. Wouters, S. & van Exel, N.J.A. & Rohde, K.I.M. & Vromen, J.J. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2017. "Acceptable health and priority weighting: Discussing a reference-level approach using sufficientarian reasoning," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 158-167.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:hal:journl:hal-01928069. 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: (CCSD). General contact details of provider: .

    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.