» Articles » PMID: 29349842

Is "end of Life" a Special Case? Connecting Q with Survey Methods to Measure Societal Support for Views on the Value of Life-extending Treatments

Overview
Journal Health Econ
Publisher Wiley
Date 2018 Jan 20
PMID 29349842
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Preference elicitation studies reporting societal views on the relative value of end-of-life treatments have produced equivocal results. This paper presents an alternative method, combining Q methodology and survey techniques (Q2S) to determine the distribution of 3 viewpoints on the relative value of end-of-life treatments identified in a previous, published, phase of this work. These were Viewpoint 1, "A population perspective: value for money, no special cases"; Viewpoint 2, "Life is precious: valuing life-extension and patient choice"; and Viewpoint 3, "Valuing wider benefits and opportunity cost: the quality of life and death." A Q2S survey of 4,902 respondents across the United Kingdom measured agreement with these viewpoints; 37% most agreed with Viewpoint 1, 49% with Viewpoint 2, and 9% with Viewpoint 3. Regression analysis showed associations of viewpoints with gender, level of education, religion, voting preferences, and satisfaction with the NHS. The Q2S approach provides a promising means to investigate how in-depth views and opinions are represented in the wider population. As demonstrated in this study, there is often more than 1 viewpoint on a topic and methods that seek to estimate that averages may not provide the best guidance for societal decision-making.

Citing Articles

Causes, Solutions and Health Inequalities: Comparing Perspectives of Professional Stakeholders and Community Participants Experiencing Low Income and Poor Health in London.

McHugh N, Baker R, Donaldson C, Bala A, Mojarrieta M, White G Health Expect. 2024; 27(6):e70128.

PMID: 39688316 PMC: 11651171. DOI: 10.1111/hex.70128.


Patients as team members: Factors affecting involvement in treatment decisions from the perspective of patients with a chronic condition.

Buljac-Samardzic M, Clark M, van Exel N, van Wijngaarden J Health Expect. 2021; 25(1):138-148.

PMID: 34598308 PMC: 8849256. DOI: 10.1111/hex.13358.


Public perspectives on health improvement within a remote-rural island community.

Macaulay B, McHugh N, Steiner A Health Expect. 2021; 24(4):1286-1299.

PMID: 33955117 PMC: 8369116. DOI: 10.1111/hex.13260.


Public values and plurality in health priority setting: What to do when people disagree and why we should care about reasons as well as choices.

Baker R, Mason H, McHugh N, Donaldson C Soc Sci Med. 2021; 277:113892.

PMID: 33882440 PMC: 8135121. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113892.


Severity as a Priority Setting Criterion: Setting a Challenging Research Agenda.

Barra M, Broqvist M, Gustavsson E, Henriksson M, Juth N, Sandman L Health Care Anal. 2019; 28(1):25-44.

PMID: 31119609 PMC: 7045747. DOI: 10.1007/s10728-019-00371-z.


References
1.
Mason H, van Exel J, Baker R, Brouwer W, Donaldson C . From representing views to representativeness of views: Illustrating a new (Q2S) approach in the context of health care priority setting in nine European countries. Soc Sci Med. 2016; 166:205-213. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.08.036. View

2.
Baker R, Wildman J, Mason H, Donaldson C . Q-ing for health--a new approach to eliciting the public's views on health care resource allocation. Health Econ. 2013; 23(3):283-97. DOI: 10.1002/hec.2914. View

3.
Rawlins M, Barnett D, Stevens A . Pharmacoeconomics: NICE's approach to decision-making. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010; 70(3):346-9. PMC: 2949905. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2009.03589.x. View

4.
Jack A . Peter Clark: public attitudes support a more favourable assessment for cancer treatments. BMJ. 2014; 349:g5545. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g5545. View

5.
McHugh N, Baker R, Mason H, Williamson L, van Exel J, Deogaonkar R . Extending life for people with a terminal illness: a moral right and an expensive death? Exploring societal perspectives. BMC Med Ethics. 2015; 16:14. PMC: 4357067. DOI: 10.1186/s12910-015-0008-x. View