Search

The appropriate thresholds for decisions on the cost-effectiveness of medical interventions remain controversial, especially in 'end-of-life' situations. Evidence of the values placed on different types of health gain by the general public is limited. Across nine European countries, 17 657 people were presented with different hypothetical health scenarios each involving a gain of one quality adjusted life year (QALY) and asked about their willingness to pay (WTP) for that gain. The questions included quality of life (QoL) enhancing and life extending health gains, and a scenario where respondents faced imminent, premature death. The mean WTP values for a one-QALY gain composed of QoL improvements were modest (PPP$11 000). When comparing QALY gains obtained in the near future, the valuation of life extension exceeded the valuation of QoL enhancing gains (mean WTP PPP$19 000 for a scenario in which a coma is avoided). The mean WTP values were higher still when respondents faced imminent, premature death (PPP$29 000). Evidence from the largest survey on the value of health gains by the general public indicated a higher value for life extending gains compared with QoL enhancing gains. A further modest premium may be indicated for life extension when facing imminent, premature death. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The elicitation of societal views about healthcare priority setting is an important, contemporary research area, and there are a number of studies that apply either qualitative techniques or quantitative preference elicitation methods. However, there are methodological challenges in connecting qualitative information (what perspectives exist about a subject) with quantitative questions (to what extent are those perspectives ‘supported’ in a wider population). In this paper, we present an integrated, mixed-methods approach to the elicitation of public perspectives in two linked studies applying Q methodology. In the first study, we identify three broad viewpoints on the subject of health priorities. In the second study, using Q-survey methods, we describe and illustrate methods to investigate the distribution of those views in the wider population. The findings of the second study suggest that no single viewpoint dominates and none of the three views represents a ‘minority perspective’. We demonstrate the potential of Q methodology as a methodological framework that can be used to link qualitative and quantitative questions and suggest some advantages of this over other approaches. However, as this represents the first applied study of this kind, there are methodological questions that require further exploration and development. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Preference elicitation studies reporting societal views on the relative value of end‐of‐life treatments have produced equivocal results. This paper presents an alternative method, combining Q methodology and survey techniques (Q2S) to determine the distribution of 3 viewpoints on the relative value of end‐of‐life treatments identified in a previous, published, phase of this work. These were Viewpoint 1, “A population perspective: value for money, no special cases”; Viewpoint 2, “Life is precious: valuing life‐extension and patient choice”; and Viewpoint 3, “Valuing wider benefits and opportunity cost: the quality of life and death.” A Q2S survey of 4,902 respondents across the United Kingdom measured agreement with these viewpoints; 37% most agreed with Viewpoint 1, 49% with Viewpoint 2, and 9% with Viewpoint 3. Regression analysis showed associations of viewpoints with gender, level of education, religion, voting preferences, and satisfaction with the NHS. The Q2S approach provides a promising means to investigate how in‐depth views and opinions are represented in the wider population. As demonstrated in this study, there is often more than 1 viewpoint on a topic and methods that seek to estimate that averages may not provide the best guidance for societal decision‐making.

The appropriate thresholds for decisions on the cost-effectiveness of medical interventions remain controversial, especially in 'end-of-life' situations. Evidence of the values placed on different types of health gain by the general public is limited.Across nine European countries, 17,657 people were presented with different hypothetical health scenarios each involving a gain of one quality adjusted life year (QALY) and asked about their willingness to pay (WTP) for that gain. The questions included quality of life (QoL) enhancing and life extending health gains, and a scenario where respondents faced imminent, premature death.The mean WTP values for a one-QALY gain composed of QoL improvements were modest (PPP$11,000). When comparing QALY gains obtained in the near future, the valuation of life extension exceeded the valuation of QoL enhancing gains (mean WTP PPP$19,000 for a scenario in which a coma is avoided). The mean WTP values were higher still when respondents faced imminent, premature death (PPP$29,000).Evidence from the largest survey on the value of health gains by the general public indicated a higher value for life extending gains compared with QoL enhancing gains. A further modest premium may be indicated for life extension when facing imminent, premature death.

The elicitation of societal views about healthcare priority setting is an important, contemporary research area, and there are a number of studies that apply either qualitative techniques or quantitative preference elicitation methods. However, there are methodological challenges in connecting qualitative information (what perspectives exist about a subject) with quantitative questions (to what extent are those perspectives 'supported' in a wider population). In this paper, we present an integrated, mixed-methods approach to the elicitation of public perspectives in two linked studies applying Q methodology. In the first study, we identify three broad viewpoints on the subject of health priorities. In the second study, using Q-survey methods, we describe and illustrate methods to investigate the distribution of those views in the wider population. The findings of the second study suggest that no single viewpoint dominates and none of the three views represents a 'minority perspective'. We demonstrate the potential of Q methodology as a methodological framework that can be used to link qualitative and quantitative questions and suggest some advantages of this over other approaches. However, as this represents the first applied study of this kind, there are methodological questions that require further exploration and development.

Debate about the monetary value of a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) has existed in the health economics literature for some time. More recently, concern about such a value has arisen in UK health policy. This paper reports on an attempt to 'model' a willingness-to-pay-based value of a QALY from the existing value of preventing a statistical fatality (VPF) currently used in UK public sector decision making. Two methods of deriving the value of a QALY from the existing UK VPF are outlined: one conventional and one new. The advantages and disadvantages of each of the approaches are discussed as well as the implications of the results for policy and health economic evaluation methodology.