Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30499065›Full record

Trial reportPharmacoEconomics2019

Measuring Public Preferences for Health Outcomes and Expenditures in a Context of Healthcare Resource Re-Allocation.

Nicolas Krucien, Nathalie Pelletier-Fleury, Amiram Gafni

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in PharmacoEconomics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nicolas KrucienHealth Economics Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB25 2QN, Scotland, UK. nicolas.krucien@abdn.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9179-6558
Nathalie Pelletier-FleuryCentre de Recherche en Epidémiologie et Santé des Populations, Université Paris-Sud, UVSQ, INSERM, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France.
Amiram GafniDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evaluation and Impact, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HERU1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe final outcome of any resource allocation decision in healthcare cannot be determined in advance. Thus, decision makers, in deciding which new program to implement (or not), need to accommodate the uncertainty of different potential outcomes (i.e., change in both health and costs) that can occur, the size and nature (i.e., 'bad' or 'good') of these outcomes, and how they are being valued. Using the decision-making plane, which explicitly incorporates opportunity costs and relaxes the assumptions of perfect divisibility and constant returns to scale of the cost-effectiveness plane, all the potential outcomes of each resource allocation decision can be described.

objectiveIn this study, we describe the development and testing of an instrument, using a discrete choice experiment methodology, allowing the measurement of public preferences for potential outcomes falling in different quadrants of the decision-making plane.

methodIn a sample of 200 participants providing 4200 observations, we compared four versions of the preference-elicitation instrument using a range of indicators.

resultsWe identified one version that was well accepted by the participants and with good measurement properties.

conclusionThis validated instrument can now be used in a larger representative sample to study the preferences of the public for potential outcomes stemming from re-allocation of healthcare resources.

Indexed as

Public OpinionCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision MakingDelivery of Health CareFemaleHealth ExpendituresHumansMalePatient PreferenceResource AllocationUncertainty

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.