Public Preferences for Responsibility Versus Public Preferences for Reducing Inequalities
β Scribed by Richard Edlin; Aki Tsuchiya; Paul Dolan
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 2011
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 485 KB
- Volume
- 21
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 1057-9230
- DOI
- 10.1002/hec.1799
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
β¦ Synopsis
SUMMARY
In costβutility analysis, the numbers of qualityβadjusted life years (QALYs) gained are aggregated by placing the same weight on each QALY. Deviations from this rubric have been proposed on a number of grounds, including the degree to which persons might be deemed responsible for the illness faced, and inequality in lifetime health between groups. Most research has looked at these factors in isolation. This paper analyses public preferences about the relative importance of these factors. Over 500 members of the general public in the UK are interviewed in their homes. Where βblameworthyβ groups experience a moderate drop in quality of life due to their behaviour, they appear to receive higher priority than an otherwise βtrustworthyβ group if they also experience poorer health prospects because the latter is weighted more heavily than the former. Copyright Β© 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
π SIMILAR VOLUMES
## Abstract Economic evaluations generally fail to incorporate elements of intangible costs and benefits, such as anxiety and discomfort associated with the screening test and diagnostic test, as well as the magnitude of utility associated with a reduction in the risk of dying from cancer. In the p
## Abstract Elder care can involve the elder's children, other relatives, friends, community, and services sponsored by the government. According to the compensatory view, an individual prefers to rely on only one mode of elder care (i.e., care of elders in society, not just one's parents). In cont
To investigate the nature of public preferences in the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation a social conjoint analysis (CA) technique was developed for a questionnaire survey. A convenience sample of academic and non-academic employees of a British University were invited to particip