ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2015
Who prefers the 'cost-effectiveness ratio' prioritization approach in health-care decisions? Results of an empirical analysis.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe problem of resource scarcity has led to an on-going debate about priority setting in the health-care system. Prioritization via the economic-based cost-effectiveness ratio (CER), for example, is controversial and has many advocates as well as opponents. Hence, the aim of our research is to analyse the fairness consideration of the CER approach in comparison with other prioritization approaches and to investigate whether these preferences depend on the field of study.
methodsWe developed and tested a unique questionnaire. Between October 2011 and January 2012, freshmen and advanced university students of medicine, law, economics, philosophy and religion in Germany were asked to choose among four prioritization approaches (CER, minimum health, random selection and age) using a dichotomous choice technique. The data were analysed by descriptive and microeconometric regression techniques.
resultsData on 913 students were included in the study. A majority of the students prioritized cost-effectiveness second after minimum health. Advanced economics students preferred the CER approach significantly more than did incoming economics students. The attitudes of the advanced philosophy/religion students towards the CER were significantly more negative compared with the respective freshmen. Further, gender had a strong, significant impact on attitudes: women chose the CER less often than men did (P < 0.01).
conclusionThe results of this study indicate that attitudes presented by opinion leaders in the investigated fields of study seem to be in line with the perceptions of the respective fields' advanced students. Because of these differences, the debate on how to deal with scarce resources may remain complicated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.