SynthesisThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2020
How averse are the UK general public to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups? A systematic review.
Synthesis in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Public preferences for allocating health system resources in Canada: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Contributions of decision science to ethical priority-setting in climate and health research.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2026Article
- Public preferences for reducing health inequality in the US: a national survey.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- What Value Do Dutch Citizens Place on Health Interventions That Provide Greater Health Gains to Lower-Income Groups? A Discrete Choice Experiment.International journal of health policy and management · 2026Article
- Public health economics and upstream income-based policies: from cost to value.Journal of public health policy · 2025Review
- The Citizens' Distributional Preferences for Health Care Resource Allocations: The Non-Negligible Role of Option Value.Health economics · 2025Article
- Fair allocation strategies for opioid settlements.Health care management science · 2025Article
- Regional variation of COVID-19 admissions, acute kidney injury and mortality in England - a national observational study using administrative data.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Observational
- Perceived health inequalities: are the UK and US public aware of occupation-related health inequality, and do they wish to see it reduced?BMC public health · 2023Article
- Health Reform in Aotearoa New Zealand: Insights on Health Equity Challenges One Year On.Applied health economics and health policy · 2023Article
- Decomposition of Quality-Adjusted Life Expectancy Inequalities by Mortality and Health-Related Quality of Life Dimensions.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Article
- Inequality in quality-adjusted life expectancy by educational attainment in Norway: an observational study.BMC public health · 2023Observational
- The Challenge for Orphan Drugs Remains: Three Case Studies Demonstrating the Impact of Changes to NICE Methods and Processes and Alternative Mechanisms to Value Orphan Products.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2023Article
- Eliciting public values on health inequalities: missing evidence forEvidence & policy : a journal of research, debate and practice · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE): An Updated Review.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2022Review
- A dynamic microsimulation model for epidemics.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2021Article
- Area level deprivation and monthly COVID-19 cases: The impact of government policy in England.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2021Article
- AI in Cardiac Imaging: A UK-Based Perspective on Addressing the Ethical, Social, and Political Challenges.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2020Review
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
There is growing interest in the use of "distributionally-sensitive" forms of economic evaluation that capture both the impact of an intervention upon average population health and the distribution of that health amongst the population. This review aims to inform the conduct of distributionally sensitive evaluations in the UK by answering three questions: (1) How averse are the UK public towards inequalities in lifetime health between socioeconomic groups? (2) Does this aversion differ depending upon the type of health under consideration? (3) Are the UK public as averse to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups as they are to inequalities in health between neutrally framed groups? EMBASE, MEDLINE, EconLit, and SSCI were searched for stated preference studies relevant to these questions in October 2017. Of the 2155 potentially relevant papers identified, 15 met the predefined hierarchical eligibility criteria. Seven elicited aversion to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups, and eight elicited aversion between neutrally labelled groups. We find general, although not universal, evidence for aversion to inequalities in lifetime health between socioeconomic groups, albeit with significant variation in the strength of that preference across studies. Second, limited evidence regarding the impact of the type of health upon aversion. Third, some evidence that the UK public are more averse to inequalities in lifetime health when those inequalities are presented in the context of socioeconomic inequality than when presented in isolation.
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.