Search

Efficiently allocating scarce healthcare resources requires nuanced understanding of individual and collective interests as well as relative concerns, which may overlap or conflict. This paper is the first to empirically investigate whether and to what extent self-interest (SI), positional concerns (PC) and distributional considerations (DC) simultaneously explain individual decision making related to access to healthcare services. Our investigation is based on a stated choice experiment conducted in two countries with different healthcare systems, the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK). The choice experiment is on allocation of medical treatment waiting times for a hypothetical disease. We carry out the investigation under two different perspectives: (i) in a socially inclusive personal perspective decision makers were asked to choose between waiting time distributions for themselves and (ii) in a social perspective decision makers were asked to make similar choices for a close relative or friend of opposite gender. The results obtained by estimating a variety of advanced choice models indicate that DC, SI and PC, in this order of importance, are significant drivers of choice behaviour in our empirical context. These findings are consistent regardless of the choice perspective and the country where decision makers live. Comparing the results from different choice perspectives, we find that US respondents who chose for their close relative or friend attach significantly larger weight to their close relative's or friend's waiting times as well as to the overall distribution of waiting times than US respondents who chose for themselves. Looking at differences between countries, our results show that UK respondents who made choices for themselves placed significantly larger weight on SI and DC than US respondents, while US respondents, in turn, displayed relatively stronger but not significantly different positional concerns than UK respondents. In addition, we observe that UK respondents who chose for their close relative or friend put a larger weight on DC than their US counterparts. We conclude that the methodological (data collection and analysis) approach allows for disentangling the relative importance of the three motivations and discusses the potential implications of these findings for healthcare decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people (ICECAP-O) is intended for use in economic evaluations of care services for older people. Although studies support the validity of the ICECAP-O, it does not directly ask older people about their health. This raises questions about its ability to capture health indirectly. Previous studies found mixed results in this aspect, especially for physical health. This study further investigates whether the ICECAP-O indirectly includes health.Methods: Using a cross-sectional design, a sampling agency retrieved data from 516 people aged 70 and older from the UK through an online questionnaire. The overlap in underlying constructs of the ICECAP-O and EQ-5D-5L was assessed using exploratory factor analysis. Spearman correlations and variance analysis were conducted by relating the ICECAP-O to measures of physical, mental and social functioning.Results: The ICECAP-O and EQ-5D-5L items loaded on two factors. Their overlap was limited, as four out of five EQ-5D-5L items loaded on the first factor, while four out of five ICECAP-O items loaded on the second. The ICECAP-O correlated highly with (mental and social functioning) health measures, and was able to differentiate between individuals with different scores on these measures. However, the correlation with the Barthel Index, a measure of physical functioning, was moderate.Conclusions: The ICECAP-O may not fully cover all aspects of health. Therefore, a complementary health measure should be used in addition to the ICECAP-O to capture the full benefits of care interventions for older people in economic evaluations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Experiencing deteriorating health has implications for your quality of life. The theory of adaptation suggests that with time spend living in a health state individuals can adapt, resulting in observed quality of life levels to revert or stagnate despite persistently decreased health. Adaptation has implications for the use of subjective quality of life indicators when quantifying the impact of health changes or the benefits from new medical technologies. As both the impact from ill health and the benefit from new interventions might be disease- or subgroup-specific adaptation further raises ethical concerns but empirical evidence on its existence, magnitude, and heterogeneity remains inconclusive. This paper uses a general population sample of 9,543 individuals that participate in the UK Understanding Society survey and experience the onset of a long-standing illness or disability to provide evidence on these questions. Using ordered-response fixed effects models we explore longitudinal changes in self-assessed health and life satisfaction around the onset of disability. Our results indicate that disability onset is associated with large decreases in subjective health and well-being. Over time this initial decrease in subjective quality of life indicators attenuates, especially in life satisfaction and to a lesser extent for self-assessed health. While the relative difference in adaptation across these two measures remains persistent, we find that across demographic and severity groups the initial impact of disability onset and adaptation differs considerably in its magnitude. These results have important implications for studies aiming to quantify the impact of health conditions on quality of life outcomes, especially when using observational datasets. • Adaptation is particularly pronounced in life satisfaction. • Across subgroups adaptation in life satisfaction differs. • In self-assessed health adaptation is limited with no differences across subgroups. • When using well-being measures adaptation could distort measured disease impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Informal care is often not included in economic evaluations in healthcare, while the impact of caregiving can be relevant for cost-effectiveness recommendations from a societal perspective. The impact of informal care can be measured and valued with the CarerQol instrument, which measures the impact of informal care on seven important burden dimensions (CarerQol-7D) and values this in terms of general quality of life (CarerQol-VAS). The CarerQol can be included at the effect side of multi-criteria analyses of patient interventions or in cost-effectiveness or utility analysis of interventions targeted at caregivers.Objective: At present, utility scores based on relative utility weights for the CarerQol-7D are only available for the Netherlands. This study calculates CarerQol-7D tariffs for Australia, Germany, Sweden, UK, and US.Methods: Data were collected among the general population in Australia, Germany, Sweden, UK, and US by an Internet survey. Utility weights were collected with a discrete choice experiment with two unlabeled alternatives described in terms of the seven CarerQol-7D dimensions. An efficient experimental design with priors obtained from the Netherlands was used to create the choice sets. Data was analyzed with a panel mixed multinomial logit model with random parameters.Results: In all five countries, the CarerQol-7D dimensions were significantly associated with the utility of informal care situations. Physical health problems were most strongly associated with the utility for informal care situations. The tariff was constructed by adding up the relative utility weights per category of all CarerQol-7D dimensions for each country separately.Conclusion: The CarerQol tariffs for Australia, Germany, Sweden, UK, and US facilitate the inclusion of informal care in economic evaluations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To understand the public sentiment toward the measures used by policymakers for COVID-19 containment, a survey among representative samples of the population in seven European countries was carried out in the first two weeks of April 2020. The study addressed people's support for containment policies, worries about COVID-19 consequences, and trust in sources of information. Citizens were overall satisfied with their government's response to the pandemic; however, the extent of approval differed across countries and policy measures. A north-south divide in public opinion was noticeable across the European states. It was particularly pronounced for intrusive policy measures, such as mobile data use for movement tracking, economic concerns, and trust in the information from the national government. Considerable differences in people's attitudes were noticed within countries, especially across individual regions and age groups. The findings suggest that the epidemic acts as a stressor, causing health and economic anxieties even in households that were not directly affected by the virus. At the same time, the burden of stress was unequally distributed across regions and age groups. Based on the data collected, we draw lessons from the containment stage and identify several insights that can facilitate the design of lockdown exit strategies and future containment policies so that a high level of compliance can be expected., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2018 The Authors. Health Economics Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)