Does the UK-public's aversion to inequalities in health differ by group-labelling and health-gain type? A choice-experiment.
Choice experiment
Distributional cost effectiveness analysis
Economic evaluation
Equity
Health inequality aversion
Person trade off
Public preferences
United Kingdom
Journal
Social science & medicine (1982)
ISSN: 1873-5347
Titre abrégé: Soc Sci Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8303205
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2021
01 2021
Historique:
revised:
26
06
2020
accepted:
01
12
2020
pubmed:
15
12
2020
medline:
25
5
2021
entrez:
14
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Public health policy has two primary aims: promoting population health and reducing health inequalities. When these aims conflict, policy-makers must determine the relative importance to place on each in decision-making. We conducted a computer-based, face-to-face, choice-experiment to explore how the UK-public think government should act in these situations; and to explore how "inequality-aversion" may differ depending on the groups between which a health inequality exists and type of health an intervention provides. We tested three hypotheses: (1) the UK-public are more averse to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups than they are to inequalities in health between neutrally labelled groups; (2) this difference is, at least in part, driven by the role non-health information plays in determining aversion to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups; and (3) the UK-public are more willing to prioritise groups with lower lifetime health over groups with higher lifetime health if an intervention improves life-expectancy than if it improves quality-of-life. Eighty people participated in Sheffield and Hull in May/June 2019. Each participant completed three Person-Trade-Off exercises between interventions that would improve population health and reduce health inequalities, or improve population health by a larger amount but increase health inequalities. Participants were randomised to exercises involving scenarios with socioeconomic groups or neutrally-labelled groups, and each answered questions about three health-benefit types: increased life-expectancy; pain-relief; and mobility-improvement. Following the exercises, participants provided rationales for their selections. Respondents were (1) more averse to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups than neutrally labelled groups. Participant rationales suggest (2) this divergence is partly motivated by factors other than health: for example, financial inequality between socioeconomic groups. The sample was also (3) more willing to prioritise neutrally labelled groups with lower lifetime health if an intervention improves life-expectancy rather than if it improves quality-of-life.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33309151
pii: S0277-9536(20)30792-9
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113573
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
113573Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 108903/Z/19/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.