Public perspectives on the trade-off between concentrating and dispersing health care benefits
Trigg, L. A.; Schmeising-Barnes, N.; Dix, C.; Angus, C.; Tsuchiya, A.
Show abstract
Background Conventional cost-effectiveness analysis assumes societal indifference to the distribution of health gains across potential patients, yet evidence suggests public preferences vary between concentrating and dispersing benefits, depending on the size of health gain. The handful of Person Trade-Off (PTO) studies that explored this did not examine the cognitive mechanisms and rationales underlying the PTO tasks. Objectives To qualitatively investigate how individuals conceptualise and justify trade-off decisions within a PTO task designed to elicit distributional preferences regarding healthcare benefits. Methods Following a pilot phase (n=10), online cognitive debrief interviews (n=10) were conducted with UK adults using a think-aloud protocol and concurrent verbal probing. Participants completed an interactive, web-based PTO task that presented choices between concentrating larger health gains among fewer recipients or dispersing smaller gains across a larger population. Data were analysed using codebook thematic analysis. Results Six primary themes emerged across two categories: decision-making processes and decision drivers. Participants displayed varying degrees of moral discomfort, utilizing cognitive mechanisms ranging from strict mathematical logic (QALY maximisation) to emotion-driven heuristics. Key decision drivers included patient age, quality of survival, societal productivity, and strong death aversion. Participants frequently rejected pure QALY maximisation and held strong egalitarian preferences to give every patient a chance to receive treatment. Conclusion Public perspectives on benefit distribution are highly heterogeneous and shaped by complex normative values rather than pure health maximisation. Understanding these qualitative rationales is essential for isolating genuine distributional preferences from cognitive shortcuts, aiding health technology assessment bodies in evaluating equity weights.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Public acceptability of non-pharmaceutical interventions to control a pandemic in the United Kingdom: a discrete choice experiment 94%
- Methodological Considerations for Linking Household and Healthcare Provider Data for Estimating Effective Coverage: A Systematic Review 93%
- Modelling Palliative and End of Life resource requirements during COVID-19: implications for quality care 92%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Healthcare workers experiences of working on the frontline and views about support during COVID-19 and comparable pandemics: A rapid review and meta-synthesis 91%
- The Monash Learning Health System Maturity Matrix: Codesign of a Tool to Measure and Guide Improvement in Complex Health System Behaviour 91%
- ‘Leading from the front’ implementation strategies increase the success of influenza vaccination drives among healthcare workers: A reanalysis of Systematic Review evidence using Intervention Component Analysis (ICA) and Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis 93%
- A novel decision modeling framework for health policy analyses when outcomes are influenced by social and disease processes 92%
- Forecasting local surges in COVID-19 hospitalizations through adaptive decision tree classifiers 87%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.