ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2018
Does the use of the proportional shortfall help align the prioritisation of health services with public preferences?
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Monetary value of health-a practical decision-making framework combining equity considerations and WTP.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025Article
- Quantifying Disease Severity in Health Technology Assessment in Japan: A Retrospective Analysis Using Quality-Adjusted Life-Year Shortfalls.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2025Article
- A QALY is [still] a QALY is [still] a QALY? : Evaluating proportional shortfall as the answer to the problem of equity in healthcare allocations.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
It has been proposed that equity may be included in the economic evaluation of health services using the 'proportional shortfall' (PS)-the proportion of a person's QALY expectation that they would lose because of an illness. The present paper reports the results of a population survey designed to test whether PS helped to explain people's preferences for health services and whether it did this better than the absolute shortfall or the equity related variables that PS seeks to replace. Survey respondents were asked to allocate 100 votes between 13 scenarios and a standard scenario. Variation in the allocation of votes was explained by health gain and different combinations of the equity variables. Differences in votes for the comparisons were significantly related to differences in PS but the relationship was weaker than between votes and the age related variables. Cases were identified where PS suggested a priority ordering of services which was strongly rejected by respondents. It is concluded that the use of PS is unlikely to improve the alignment of priorities with public preferences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28801762What 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.