Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34409564›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2021

What Aspects of Illness Influence Public Preferences for Healthcare Priority Setting? A Discrete Choice Experiment in the UK.

Liz Morrell, James Buchanan, Sian Rees, Richard W Barker, Sarah Wordsworth

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Genomic Medicine: Considerations for Addressing Health Equity.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Liz MorrellHealth Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK. liz.morrell@ndph.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-6382-1795
James BuchananHealth Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Sian ReesOxford Academic Health Science Network, Oxford, UK.
Richard W BarkerOxford-UCL Centre for the Advancement of Sustainable Medical Innovation, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sarah WordsworthHealth Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
University of Oxford · GBOxford Academic Health Science Network · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDecisions on funding new healthcare technologies assume that all health improvements are valued equally. However, public reaction to health technology assessment (HTA) decisions suggests there are health attributes that matter deeply to them but are not currently accounted for in the assessment process. We aimed to determine the relative importance of attributes of illness that influence the value placed on alleviating that illness.

methodWe conducted a discrete choice experiment survey that presented general public respondents with 15 funding decisions between hypothetical health conditions. The conditions were defined by five attributes that characterise serious illnesses, plus the health gain from treatment. Respondent preferences were modelled using conditional logistic regression and latent class analysis.

results905 members of the UK public completed the survey in November 2017. Respondents generally preferred to provide treatments for conditions with 'better' characteristics. The exception was treatment availability, where respondents preferred to provide treatments for conditions where there is no current treatment, and were prepared to accept lower overall health gain to do so. A subgroup of respondents preferred to prioritise 'worse' health states.

conclusionThis study suggests a preference among the UK public for treating an unmet need; however, it does not suggest a preference for prioritising other distressing aspects of health conditions, such as limited life expectancy, or where patients are reliant on care. Our results are not consistent with the features currently prioritised in UK HTA processes, and the preference heterogeneity we identify presents a major challenge for developing broadly acceptable policy.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorPatient PreferenceHumansLife ExpectancySurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID34409564
PMCPMC8599241
OpenAlexW3179390162

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.