Trial reportHealth policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2020
Does moral reasoning influence public values for health care priority setting?: A population-based randomized stated preference survey.
Trial report in Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Public preferences for allocating health system resources in Canada: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Institutional Priority-Setting for Novel Drugs and Therapeutics: A Qualitative Systematic Review.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Access to novel drugs and therapeutics for children and youth: Eliciting citizens' values to inform public funding decisions.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Moral and Social Values in Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide".International journal of health policy and management · 2023Article
- COVID-19 health policy evaluation: integrating health and economic perspectives with a data envelopment analysis approach.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022Article
- Patient and Public Preferences for Coordinated Care in Switzerland: Development of a Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 2022Review
- Hospital staff members' preferences about who should be prioritized to receive the COVID-19 vaccine: People with or without Alzheimer's disease?Journal of aging studies · 2021Article
- Valuing child and adolescent health: a qualitative study on different perspectives and priorities taken by the adult general public.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2021Article
- Rural citizen-patient priorities for healthcare in British Columbia, Canada: findings from a mixed methods study.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Public Preferences for Allocation Principles for Scarce Medical Resources in the COVID-19 Pandemic in Korea: Comparisons With Ethicists' Recommendations.Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi · 2021Article
- Laypersons' Priority-Setting Preferences for Allocating a COVID-19 Patient to a Ventilator: Does a Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease Matter?Clinical interventions in aging · 2020Article
- Examining hospital staff members' preferences for allocating a ventilator to a COVID-19 patient with and without Alzheimer's disease.Geriatric nursing (New York, N.Y.)Article
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
objectivePreferences of members of the public are recognized as important inputs into health care priority-setting, though knowledge of such preferences is scant. We sought to generate evidence of public preferences related to healthcare resource allocation among adults and children.
methodsWe conducted an experimental stated preference survey in a national sample of Canadian adults. Preferences were elicited across a range of scenarios and scored on a visual analogue scale. Intervention group participants were randomized to a moral reasoning exercise prior to each choice task. The main outcomes were the differences in mean preference scores by group, scenario, and demographics.
resultsOur results demonstrate a consistent preference by participants to allocate scarce health system resources to children. Exposure to the moral reasoning exercise weakened but did not eliminate this preference. Younger respondent age and parenthood were associated with greater preference for children. The top principles guiding participants' allocative decisions were treat equally, relieve suffering, and rescue those at risk of dying.
conclusionsOur study affirms the relevance of age in public preferences for the allocation of scarce health care resources, demonstrating a significant preference by participants to allocate healthcare resources to children. However, this preference diminishes when challenged by exposure to a range of moral principles, revealing a strong public endorsement of equality of access. Definitions of value in healthcare based on clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness may exclude moral considerations that the public values, such as equality and humanitarianism, highlighting opportunities to enrich healthcare priority-setting through public engagement.
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.