ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Public preferences for reducing health inequality in the US: a national survey.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are sometimes trade-offs between improving total health and reducing health inequality among social groups. When faced with such trade-offs, decision makers need information about public values. However, although evidence of this kind has been collected in a limited number of countries, there is little evidence of this kind available for the United States.
methodsWe used a national online survey of the US general population (aged 18-69) and applied a modified version of a standard benefit trade-off questionnaire used in several other countries, involving pairwise policy choices with different levels of health benefit and inequality. Proportions in qualitative health inequality categories were calculated, along with a simple index based on healthy years foregone and health inequality aversion parameters based on Atkinson and Kolm indices. Multivariable regression analyses were conducted to explore within-country heterogeneity by age, gender, income, education and geographic region.
resultsAround two thirds (65.9%) of respondents in the analytic sample (n = 440) had positive health inequality aversion, of which 20.7% were classified as "Weighted Prioritarian", 4.3% as "Maximin" and 40.9% as "Strict Egalitarian". The remaining respondents were mostly "Pro-Rich" (32.7%) rather than "Health Maximisers" (1.4%). The median respondent was "Weighted Prioritarian" and weighed health gains to the poorest fifth of people six to seven times more highly than health gains to the richest fifth (Atkinson 9.1; Kolm 0.1). Health inequality aversion was lower in the Midwest region of the US compared to the Northeast region, but otherwise was not closely correlated with observed respondent characteristics.
conclusionsMedian views about health inequality aversion in the US were similar to those in Japan and the UK, but there was a greater degree of polarisation with higher proportions of respondents at both extremes of the distribution ("Pro-Rich" and "Strict Egalitarian").
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.