ArticlePloS one2024
Rationale, conceptual issues, and resultant protocol for a mixed methods Person Trade Off (PTO) and qualitative study to estimate and understand the relative value of gains in health for children and young people compared to adults.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Are Health Gains to Children and Adolescents More Important Than Health Gains to Adults? A Person Trade-Off Study.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Public preferences for saving lives versus life-years: evidence from a person-trade-off experiment in 12 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEconomic evaluation of healthcare typically assumes that an identical health gain to different patients has the same social value. There is some evidence that the public may give greater value to gains for children and young people, although this evidence is not always consistent. We present a mixed methods study protocol where we aim to explore public preferences regarding health gains to children and young people relative to adults, in an Australian setting.
methodsThis study is a Person Trade Off (PTO) choice experiment that incorporates qualitative components. Within the PTO questions, respondents will be asked to choose between treating different groups of patients that may differ in terms of patient characteristics and group size. PTO questions will be included in an online survey to explore respondent views on the relative value of health gains to different age groups in terms of extending life and improving different aspects of quality of life. The survey will also contain attitudinal questions to help understand the impact of question style upon reported preferences. Additionally, the study will test the impact of forcing respondents to express a preference between two groups compared with allowing them to report that the two groups are equivalent. One-to-one 'think aloud', semi-structured interviews will be conducted to explore a sub-sample of respondents' motivations and views in more detail. Focus groups will be conducted with members of the public to discuss the study findings and explore their views on the role of public preferences in health care prioritisation based on patient age. DISCUSSION: Our planned study will provide valuable information to healthcare decision makers in Australia who may need to decide whether to pay more for health gains for children and young people compared with adults. Additionally, the methodological test of forcing respondent choice or allowing them to express equivalence will contribute towards developing best practice methods in PTO studies. The rationale for and advantages of the study approach and potential limitations are discussed in the protocol.
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.