SynthesisThe patient2014
A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting.
Synthesis in The patient, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
52 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Willingness to Pay per QALY: A Systematic Review of Demand-Side Valuations with a Focus on Age and Disease Severity.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Pooled it
- Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022Pooled it
- Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Pooled it
- A systematic review of moral reasons on orphan drug reimbursement.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic Review to Update 'Value of a Statistical Life' Estimates for Australia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Integrating social justice concerns into economic evaluation for healthcare and public health: A systematic review.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2018Pooled it
- Highlights from the Manifesto on the Health Economics of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Review
- The Citizens' Distributional Preferences for Health Care Resource Allocations: The Non-Negligible Role of Option Value.Health economics · 2025Article
- How Stable Are Individual Preferences for Health Expenditure in Germany?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Justification of principles for healthcare priority setting: the relevance and roles of empirical studies exploring public values.Journal of medical ethics · 2025Article
- Reevaluating health metrics: Unraveling the limitations of disability-adjusted life years as an indicator in disease burden assessment.World journal of methodology · 2025Review
- Views and opinions of the general public about the reimbursement of expensive medicines in the Netherlands.PloS one · 2025Article
- Research outcomes informing the selection of public health interventions and strategies to implement them: A cross-sectional survey of Australian policy-maker and practitioner preferences.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE): A New Preference-Elicitation Method for Decision Making in Healthcare.Applied health economics and health policy · 2024Review
- Health Equity Considerations in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Insights from an Umbrella Review.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2024Review
- Asian Americans' and Pacific Islanders' preferences in recruitment strategies and messaging for participation in the CARE registry: A discrete choice experiment.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2023Article
- Article
- Comparison of Rare and Common Diseases in the Setting of Healthcare Priorities: Evidence of Social Preferences Based on a Systematic Review.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is current interest in incorporating weights based on public preferences for health and healthcare into priority-setting decisions.
objectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to explore the extent to which public preferences and trade-offs for priority-setting criteria have been quantified, and to describe the study contexts and preference elicitation methods employed.
methodsA systematic review was performed in April 2013 to identify empirical studies eliciting the stated preferences of the public for the provision of healthcare in a priority-setting context. Studies are described in terms of (i) the stated preference approaches used, (ii) the priority-setting levels and contexts, and (iii) the criteria identified as important and their relative importance.
resultsThirty-nine studies applying 40 elicitation methods reported in 41 papers met the inclusion criteria. The discrete choice experiment method was most commonly applied (n = 18, 45.0 %), but other approaches, including contingent valuation and the person trade-off, were also used. Studies prioritised health systems (n = 4, 10.2 %), policies/programmes/services/interventions (n = 16, 41.0 %), or patient groups (n = 19, 48.7 %). Studies generally confirmed the importance of a wide range of process, non-health and patient-related characteristics in priority setting in selected contexts, alongside health outcomes. However, inconsistencies were observed for the relative importance of some prioritisation criteria, suggesting context and/or elicitation approach matter.
conclusionsOverall, findings suggest caution in directly incorporating public preferences as weights for priority setting unless the methods used to elicit the weights can be shown to be appropriate and robust in the priority-setting context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24872225What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.