Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques

Authors: Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER, Russell EM, Napper M, Robb CM

Journal: Health Technology Assessment Volume: 5 Issue: 5

Publication date: March 2001

DOI: 10.3310/hta5050

Citation:

Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER, Russell EM, et al.Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 2001;5(5)


Download: Citation (for this publication as a .ris file) (5.2 KB)


Journal issues* can be purchased by completing the form.


The cost of reports varies according to number of pages and postage address. The minimum cost for a copy sent to a UK address is £30.00. We will contact you on receipt of your completed form to advise you of actual cost. If you have any queries, please contact nihredit@southampton.ac.uk.


*We regret that unfortunately we are unable to supply bound print copies of Health Technology Assessment published before issue 12:31. However, PDFs are available to print from the "Downloads" tab of the issue page.

Responses

No responses have been published. If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below.

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

Post your response

Surname

Forename

Middle Initial

Occupation / Job title

Affiliation / Employer

Email

Address

Other authors

For example, if you are responding as a team or group. Please ensure you include full names and separate these using commas

Statement of competing interests

We believe that readers should be aware of any competing interests (conflicts of interest).

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) define competing interests as including: financial relationships with industry (for example through employment, consultancies, stock, ownership, honoraria, and expert testimony), either directly or through immediate family; personal relationships; academic competition; and intellectual passion.

If yes, provide details below:

Enter response title

Enter response message

Enter CAPTCHA

Security key

Regenerate security key

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Downloads section on this page.

Abstract

Background

Limited resources coupled with unlimited demand for healthcare mean that decisions have to be made regarding the allocation of scarce resources across competing interventions. Policy documents have advocated the importance of public views as one such criterion. In principle, the elicitation of public values represents a big step forward. However, for the exercise to be worthwhile, useful information must be obtained that is scientifically defensible, whilst decision-makers must be able and willing to use it.

Aims and objectives

The aim was to identify techniques that could be reasonably used to elicit public views on the provision of healthcare. Hence, the objectives were: (1) to identify research methods with the potential to take account of public views on the delivery of healthcare; (2) to identify criteria for assessing these methods; (3) to assess the methods identified according to the predefined criteria; (4) to assess the importance of public views vis-à-vis other criteria for setting priorities, as judged by a sample of decision-makers; (5) to make recommendations regarding the use of methods and future research.

Methods

A systematic literature review was carried out to identify methods for eliciting public views. Criteria currently used to evaluate such methods were identified. The methods identified were then evaluated according to predefined criteria. A questionnaire-based survey assessed the relative importance of public views vis-à-vis five other criteria for setting priorities: potential health gain; evidence of clinical effectiveness; budgetary impact; equity of access and health status inequalities; and quality of service. Two techniques were used: choice-based conjoint analysis and allocation of points technique. The questionnaire was sent to 143 participants. A subsample was followed up with a telephone interview.

Results

The methods identified were classified as quantitative or qualitative. RESULTS - QUANTITATIVE TECHNIQUES: Quantitative techniques, classified as ranking, rating or choice-based approaches, were evaluated according to eight criteria: validity; reproducibility; internal consistency; acceptability to respondents; cost (financial and administrative); theoretical basis; whether the technique offered a constrained choice; and whether the technique provided a strength of preference measure. Regarding ranking exercises, simple ranking exercises have proved popular, but their results are of limited use. The qualitative discriminant process has not been used to date in healthcare, but may be useful. Conjoint analysis ranking exercises did well against the above criteria. A number of rating scales were identified. The visual analogue scale has proved popular within the quality-adjusted life-year paradigm, but lacks constrained choice and may not measure strength of preference. However, conjoint analysis rating scales performed well. Methods identified for eliciting attitudes include Likert scales, the semantic differential technique, and the Guttman scale. These methods provide useful information, but do not consider strength of preference or the importance of different components within a total score. Satisfaction surveys have been frequently used to elicit public opinion. Researchers should ensure that they construct sensitive techniques, despite their limited use, or else use generic techniques where validity has already been established. Service quality (SERVQUAL) appears to be a potentially useful technique and its application should be researched. Three choice-based techniques with a limited application in healthcare are measure of value, the analytical hierarchical process and the allocation of points technique, while those more widely used, and which did well against the predefined criteria, include standard gamble, time trade-off, discrete choice conjoint analysis and willingness to pay. Little methodological work is currently available on the person trade-off. RESULTS - QUALITATIVE TECHNIQUES: Qualitative techniques were classified as either individual or group-based approaches. Individual approaches included one-to-one interviews, dyadic interviews, case study analyses, the Delphi technique and complaints procedures. Group-based methods included focus groups, concept mapping, citizens' juries, consensus panels, public meetings and nominal group techniques. Six assessment criteria were identified: validity; reliability; generalisability; objectivity; acceptability to respondents; and cost. Whilst all the methods have distinct strengths and weaknesses, there is a lot of ambiguity in the literature. Whether to use individual or group methods depends on the specific topic being discussed and the people being asked, but for both it is crucial that the interviewer/moderator remains as objective as possible. The most popular and widely used such methods were one-to-one interviews and focus groups. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Publication updates

If you would like to receive information on publications and the latest news, click below to sign up.