Health care rationing: the public's debate
Health care rationing: the public's debate
Objective: To elicit the views of a large nationally representative sample of adults on priorities for health services.
Design: An interview survey based on a random sample of people aged 16 and over in Great Britain taken by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.
Subjects: The response rate to the survey was 75%, and the total number of adults interviewed was 2005.
Main outcome measures: A priority ranking exercise of health services supplemented with attitude questions about priorities, who should set priorities, and budget allocation.
Results: The results of the main priority ranking exercise of 12 health services showed that the highest priority (rank 1) was accorded to "treatments for children with life threatening illness," the next highest priority (rank 2) was accorded to "special care and pain relief for people who are dying." The lowest priorities (11 and 12) were given to "treatment for infertility" and "treatment for people aged 75 and over with life threatening illness." Most respondents thought that surveys like this one should be used in the planning of health services.
Conclusions: The public prioritise treatments specifically for younger rather than older people. There is some public support for people with self inflicted conditions (for example, through tobacco smoking) receiving lower priority for care, which raises ethical issues.
health care rationing, health policy, attitude to health, health priorities, public opinion, resource allocation
670 - 674
Bowling, A
796ca209-687f-4079-8a40-572076251936
16 March 1996
Bowling, A
796ca209-687f-4079-8a40-572076251936
Abstract
Objective: To elicit the views of a large nationally representative sample of adults on priorities for health services.
Design: An interview survey based on a random sample of people aged 16 and over in Great Britain taken by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.
Subjects: The response rate to the survey was 75%, and the total number of adults interviewed was 2005.
Main outcome measures: A priority ranking exercise of health services supplemented with attitude questions about priorities, who should set priorities, and budget allocation.
Results: The results of the main priority ranking exercise of 12 health services showed that the highest priority (rank 1) was accorded to "treatments for children with life threatening illness," the next highest priority (rank 2) was accorded to "special care and pain relief for people who are dying." The lowest priorities (11 and 12) were given to "treatment for infertility" and "treatment for people aged 75 and over with life threatening illness." Most respondents thought that surveys like this one should be used in the planning of health services.
Conclusions: The public prioritise treatments specifically for younger rather than older people. There is some public support for people with self inflicted conditions (for example, through tobacco smoking) receiving lower priority for care, which raises ethical issues.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: 16 March 1996
Keywords:
health care rationing, health policy, attitude to health, health priorities, public opinion, resource allocation
Organisations:
Faculty of Health Sciences
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 334792
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/334792
ISSN: 0959-8138
PURE UUID: 13cf47c0-7e2d-4f18-8ffc-6d024ad4444c
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 23 Mar 2012 13:31
Last modified: 14 Mar 2024 10:36
Export record
Altmetrics
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics