The Acceptability of the Risk of Death in the Treatment of Respiratory Diseases in France

Overview

Journal Health Econ Rev

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Public Health

Date 2024 Oct 1

PMID 39352608

Authors

Caroline Orset

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The costs associated with respiratory illnesses in the French healthcare budget continue to rise. However, pharmaceutical companies and research centres are continuously developing new treatments. Consequently, accepting these treatments, which necessitates the acceptance of the mortality risk associated with their use, represents a significant economic and public health issue. Our study aims to assess this acceptance.

Methods: The data were obtained from an online questionnaire completed by 315 respondents located in France during June and July 2019. The standard gamble method was employed to ascertain the acceptability of risk. This method quantifies the 'disutility' of a health state by evaluating the extent to which an individual is willing to accept a specific mortality risk in exchange for avoiding the state.

Results: The study demonstrated that individuals, irrespective of their personal characteristics, were willing to accept a treatment with an average mortality risk of less than 19%. The findings revealed discrepancies between individuals' perceptions of mortality and actual risks.

Conclusions: In France, it is incumbent upon public decision-makers and research centres to ensure that treatment-related mortality rates remain below 19% so that patients readily accept treatment, irrespective of their personal characteristics. In addition, they should provide further information on the risks associated with treating respiratory diseases to avoid a discrepancy between the mortality risks perceived by individuals and the actual risks.

References

Attema A, Bleichrodt H, LHaridon O, Lipman S . A comparison of individual and collective decision making for standard gamble and time trade-off. Eur J Health Econ. 2020; 21(3):465-473. PMC: 7188732. DOI: 10.1007/s10198-019-01155-x. View

Kratka A, Ubel P, Scherr K, Murray B, Eyal N, Kirby C . HIV Cure Research: Risks Patients Expressed Willingness to Accept. Ethics Hum Res. 2019; 41(6):23-34. PMC: 7391483. DOI: 10.1002/eahr.500035. View

Coughlin S . Social determinants of breast cancer risk, stage, and survival. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019; 177(3):537-548. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-019-05340-7. View

Deakin C, Alexander I, Kerridge I . Accepting risk in clinical research: is the gene therapy field becoming too risk-averse?. Mol Ther. 2009; 17(11):1842-8. PMC: 2835028. DOI: 10.1038/mt.2009.223. View

Michaels-Igbokwe C, MacDonald S, Currie G . Individual Preferences for Child and Adolescent Vaccine Attributes: A Systematic Review of the Stated Preference Literature. Patient. 2017; 10(6):687-700. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-017-0244-x. View

Dosman D, Adamowicz W, Hrudey S . Socioeconomic determinants of health- and food safety-related risk perceptions. Risk Anal. 2001; 21(2):307-17. DOI: 10.1111/0272-4332.212113. View

Bleichrodt H . A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Econ. 2002; 11(5):447-56. DOI: 10.1002/hec.688. View

Ghazy R, Abdou M, Awaidy S, Sallam M, Elbarazi I, Youssef N . Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Doses Using the Health Belief Model: A Cross-Sectional Study in Low-Middle- and High-Income Countries of the East Mediterranean Region. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(19). PMC: 9566578. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191912136. View

Lipman S, Brouwer W, Attema A . QALYs without bias? Nonparametric correction of time trade-off and standard gamble weights based on prospect theory. Health Econ. 2019; 28(7):843-854. PMC: 6618285. DOI: 10.1002/hec.3895. View

10.

Coleman N, Burnett R, Higbee J, Lefler J, Merrill R, Ezzati M . Cancer mortality risk, fine particulate air pollution, and smoking in a large, representative cohort of US adults. Cancer Causes Control. 2020; 31(8):767-776. DOI: 10.1007/s10552-020-01317-w. View

11.

Lipman S, Brouwer W, Attema A . Living up to expectations: Experimental tests of subjective life expectancy as reference point in time trade-off and standard gamble. J Health Econ. 2020; 71:102318. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2020.102318. View

12.

Kellens W, Zaalberg R, Neutens T, Vanneuville W, De Maeyer P . An analysis of the public perception of flood risk on the Belgian coast. Risk Anal. 2011; 31(7):1055-68. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01571.x. View

13.

Ding Y, Du X, Li Q, Zhang M, Zhang Q, Tan X . Risk perception of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its related factors among college students in China during quarantine. PLoS One. 2020; 15(8):e0237626. PMC: 7425914. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237626. View

14.

Cykert S . Risk acceptance and risk aversion: patients' perspectives on lung surgery. Thorac Surg Clin. 2004; 14(3):287-93. DOI: 10.1016/S1547-4127(04)00016-7. View

15.

Choi A, Mulvihill M, Lee H, Zhao C, Kuchibhatla M, Schroder J . Transplant Center Variability in Organ Offer Acceptance and Mortality Among US Patients on the Heart Transplant Waitlist. JAMA Cardiol. 2020; 5(6):660-668. PMC: 7160742. DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.0659. View

16.

Brewer N, Weinstein N, Cuite C, Herrington J . Risk perceptions and their relation to risk behavior. Ann Behav Med. 2004; 27(2):125-30. DOI: 10.1207/s15324796abm2702_7. View

17.

Evans D . An activist's argument that participant values should guide risk-benefit ratio calculations in HIV cure research. J Med Ethics. 2017; 43(2):100-103. PMC: 5293856. DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2015-103120. View

18.

Siegrist M, Luchsinger L, Bearth A . The Impact of Trust and Risk Perception on the Acceptance of Measures to Reduce COVID-19 Cases. Risk Anal. 2021; 41(5):787-800. PMC: 8014821. DOI: 10.1111/risa.13675. View

19.

Tversky A, Kahneman D . Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science. 1974; 185(4157):1124-31. DOI: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124. View

20.

Savage I . Demographic influences on risk perceptions. Risk Anal. 1993; 13(4):413-20. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00741.x. View