Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40024997›Full record

ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2025

New Horizons? Assessing General Public Preferences for a Wellbeing Economy in the Post-COVID-19 World.

Rachel Milte, Matthew Crocker, Gang Chen, Gordon Duff, Julie Ratcliffe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Rachel MilteHealth and Social Care Economics Group, Caring Futures Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia. rachel.milte@flinders.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-7533-6260
Matthew CrockerHealth and Social Care Economics Group, Caring Futures Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6207-7850
Gang ChenCentre for Health Economics, Monash University, Caulfield East, Melbourne, VIC, 3145, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8385-5965
Gordon DuffPublic Service Research Group, UNSW Canberra, Canberra, ACT, 2600, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1897-9643
Julie RatcliffeHealth and Social Care Economics Group, Caring Futures Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7365-1988

Funding

Caring Futures Institute, Flinders University COVID-19 Agility Grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAs societies emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, governments are increasingly moving away from a focus on economic growth at any cost towards the principles of a wellbeing economy, focused on achieving a more equitable distribution of wealth and wellbeing. This study aimed to assess the relative importance to the Australian general public of the key principles of a wellbeing economy and to investigate heterogeneity in preferences between demographic subgroups.

methodsAn online survey was developed and delivered to a general public sample of 2042 Australian adults (aged 18 years and above). Respondents were invited to rank the key principles of a wellbeing economy (dignity, nature and climate, social connection, fairness and participation) plus two additional traditional economic indicators of societal success ('economic growth' and 'economic prosperity') in order of their relative importance for informing future policy directions. Data analysis was conducted using simple summative scoring, which involved the use of a point system allocated to rankings as a dependent variable. In addition, a rank-ordered logit model was used to explore preferences for the entire sample and subgroups defined by key socio-demographic characteristics.

results'Dignity' (people have enough to live in comfort, safety and happiness) and 'fairness' (equal opportunity for all Australians and the gap between richest and poorest greatly reduced) were ranked as the most important priorities for the total sample and for key socio-demographic subgroups differentiated by age, level of education and level of socio-economic advantage. Traditional economic indicators of societal success including 'economic prosperity' and 'economic growth' were considered important but generally ranked below the principles of 'dignity' and 'fairness'.

conclusionsThe findings indicate that government movements away from traditional economic indicators and towards new broader wellbeing economy measures of societal success are likely to be supported by the general public.

Indexed as

COVID-19Economic DevelopmentPublic OpinionAdolescentAdultAgedAustraliaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Socioeconomic FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40024997
PMCPMC12170691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.