The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository
Warning ePrints Soton is experiencing an issue with some file downloads not being available. We are working hard to fix this. Please bear with us.

Does responsibility affect the public's valuation of health care interventions? A relative valuation approach to health care safety

Does responsibility affect the public's valuation of health care interventions? A relative valuation approach to health care safety
Does responsibility affect the public's valuation of health care interventions? A relative valuation approach to health care safety
Objective: health services often spend more on safety interventions than seems cost-effective. This study investigates whether the public value safety-related health care improvements more highly than the same improvements in contexts where the health care system is not responsible.

Method: an online survey was conducted to elicit the relative importance placed on preventing harms caused by 1) health care (hospital-acquired infections, drug administration errors, injuries to health care staff), 2) individuals (personal lifestyle choices, sports-related injuries), and 3) nature (genetic disorders). Direct valuations were obtained from members of the public by using a person trade-off or “matching” method. Participants were asked to choose between two preventative interventions of equal cost and equal health benefit per person for the same number of people, but differing in causation. If participants indicated a preference, their strength of preference was measured by using person trade-off.

Results: responses were obtained from 1030 people, reflecting the sociodemographic mix of the UK population. Participants valued interventions preventing hospital-acquired infections (1.31) more highly than genetic disorders (1.0), although drug errors were valued similarly to genetic disorders (1.07), and interventions to prevent injury to health care staff were given less weight than genetic disorders (0.71). Less weight was also given to interventions related to lifestyle (0.65) and sports injuries (0.41).

Conclusion: our results suggest that people do not attach a simple fixed premium to “safety-related” interventions but that preferences depend more subtly on context. The use of the results of such public preference surveys to directly inform policy would therefore be premature
health care safety, person trade-off, public preferences, responsibility
1098-3015
690-698
Singh, J.
b3066746-23cb-4292-87c6-be4656fd0561
Lord, J.
fd3b2bf0-9403-466a-8184-9303bdc80a9a
Longworth, L.
f72c0d0a-625e-4e97-a0e8-b89792bb0cae
Orr, S.
46e0a107-cd27-4a23-93f0-5dd6bbfa96e2
McGarry, T.
6f0bcba3-4a7d-4d7f-b09e-7f386726e35b
Sheldon, R.
d6d21523-b793-4007-8505-0f1a5d5d2cf8
Buxton, M.
2496fce8-7812-477d-bd26-0e30c1969613
Singh, J.
b3066746-23cb-4292-87c6-be4656fd0561
Lord, J.
fd3b2bf0-9403-466a-8184-9303bdc80a9a
Longworth, L.
f72c0d0a-625e-4e97-a0e8-b89792bb0cae
Orr, S.
46e0a107-cd27-4a23-93f0-5dd6bbfa96e2
McGarry, T.
6f0bcba3-4a7d-4d7f-b09e-7f386726e35b
Sheldon, R.
d6d21523-b793-4007-8505-0f1a5d5d2cf8
Buxton, M.
2496fce8-7812-477d-bd26-0e30c1969613

Singh, J., Lord, J., Longworth, L., Orr, S., McGarry, T., Sheldon, R. and Buxton, M. (2012) Does responsibility affect the public's valuation of health care interventions? A relative valuation approach to health care safety. Value in Health, 15 (5), 690-698. (doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.005). (PMID:22867778)

Record type: Article

Abstract

Objective: health services often spend more on safety interventions than seems cost-effective. This study investigates whether the public value safety-related health care improvements more highly than the same improvements in contexts where the health care system is not responsible.

Method: an online survey was conducted to elicit the relative importance placed on preventing harms caused by 1) health care (hospital-acquired infections, drug administration errors, injuries to health care staff), 2) individuals (personal lifestyle choices, sports-related injuries), and 3) nature (genetic disorders). Direct valuations were obtained from members of the public by using a person trade-off or “matching” method. Participants were asked to choose between two preventative interventions of equal cost and equal health benefit per person for the same number of people, but differing in causation. If participants indicated a preference, their strength of preference was measured by using person trade-off.

Results: responses were obtained from 1030 people, reflecting the sociodemographic mix of the UK population. Participants valued interventions preventing hospital-acquired infections (1.31) more highly than genetic disorders (1.0), although drug errors were valued similarly to genetic disorders (1.07), and interventions to prevent injury to health care staff were given less weight than genetic disorders (0.71). Less weight was also given to interventions related to lifestyle (0.65) and sports injuries (0.41).

Conclusion: our results suggest that people do not attach a simple fixed premium to “safety-related” interventions but that preferences depend more subtly on context. The use of the results of such public preference surveys to directly inform policy would therefore be premature

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: July 2012
Additional Information: Singh, Jeshika Lord, Joanne Longworth, Louise Orr, Shepley McGarry, Teresa Sheldon, Rob Buxton, Martin eng Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't 2012/08/08 06:00 Value Health. 2012 Jul-Aug;15(5):690-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.005. Epub 2012 Apr 11.
Keywords: health care safety, person trade-off, public preferences, responsibility
Organisations: Primary Care & Population Sciences

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 382213
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/382213
ISSN: 1098-3015
PURE UUID: af35ea9a-ed90-4a47-a4fd-34705c769b0a
ORCID for J. Lord: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-1086-1624

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 22 Oct 2015 12:42
Last modified: 09 Nov 2021 03:33

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: J. Singh
Author: J. Lord ORCID iD
Author: L. Longworth
Author: S. Orr
Author: T. McGarry
Author: R. Sheldon
Author: M. Buxton

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

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×