IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v309y2022ics0277953622005299.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Integrating Citizens Juries and Discrete Choice Experiments: Methodological issues in the measurement of public values in healthcare priority setting

Author

Listed:
  • Schoon, Rebecca
  • Chi, Chunhuei

Abstract

All health systems struggle with unlimited needs for healthcare, yet limited resources with which to address them. Under national health insurance systems, policymakers must make explicit and potentially contested decisions around resource allocation. Policymakers have recognized the need to include public values in decisions regarding the distribution of resources across competing health priorities. Given the complex nature of these decisions, however, research into how to effectively measure public preferences is underdeveloped. Measuring community values poses special challenges since they involve normative judgments that can be interpreted differently across individuals and communities. Researchers have previously proposed integrating two methods that are currently used for measuring public preferences around healthcare services: i) an individual survey instrument, the Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) and ii) a group-based model that incorporates informed opinions and deliberative dialogue, Citizen Juries (CJs). This current paper proposes a framework for implementing that integration and assesses methodological issues in the integration of DCEs and CJs, including issues of generalizability and validity. CJs and DCEs have conflicting epistemological and methodological foundations, which impact how researchers might analyze results of the integrated method. Researchers and policymakers interested in measuring social values should determine the philosophical orientation of their research question prior to study design, which will assist in choosing an appropriate research method. Further research is needed to investigate the empirical validity of the integrated method and how it may be implemented to maximize public acceptance. Advancing these methods can provide an improved instrument for capturing public preferences for policymakers tasked with priority setting in diverse contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Schoon, Rebecca & Chi, Chunhuei, 2022. "Integrating Citizens Juries and Discrete Choice Experiments: Methodological issues in the measurement of public values in healthcare priority setting," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 309(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:309:y:2022:i:c:s0277953622005299
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115223
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953622005299
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115223?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maluka, Stephen & Kamuzora, Peter & Sebastiån, Miguel San & Byskov, Jens & Olsen, Øystein E. & Shayo, Elizabeth & Ndawi, Benedict & Hurtig, Anna-Karin, 2010. "Decentralized health care priority-setting in Tanzania: Evaluating against the accountability for reasonableness framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(4), pages 751-759, August.
    2. Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & McHugh, Neil & Donaldson, Cam, 2021. "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," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    3. Chunhuei Chi & Anaïs Tuepker & Rebecca Schoon & Alicia Núñez Mondaca, 2018. "Critical evaluation of international health programs: Reframing global health and evaluation," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 511-523, April.
    4. Wiseman, V. & Mooney, G. & Berry, G. & Tang, K. C., 2003. "Involving the general public in priority setting: experiences from Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(5), pages 1001-1012, March.
    5. Street, Jackie & Duszynski, Katherine & Krawczyk, Stephanie & Braunack-Mayer, Annette, 2014. "The use of citizens' juries in health policy decision-making: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 1-9.
    6. Mooney, Gavin, 2009. "Challenging Health Economics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199235971.
    7. Panos Kanavos & Olivier Wouters & Aris Angelis & Panos Kanavos & Gilberto Montibeller, 2017. "Resource Allocation and Priority Setting in Health Care: A Multi-criteria Decision Analysis Problem of Value?," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8, pages 76-83, March.
    8. Deborah Marshall & John Bridges & Brett Hauber & Ruthanne Cameron & Lauren Donnalley & Ken Fyie & F. Reed Johnson, 2010. "Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health — How are Studies being Designed and Reported?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 249-256, December.
    9. Baum, Frances, 1995. "Researching public health: Behind the qualitative-quantitative methodological debate," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 459-468, February.
    10. Mooney, Gavin, 2005. "Communitarian claims and community capabilities: furthering priority setting?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 247-255, January.
    11. repec:bla:glopol:v:8:y:2017:i:s2:p:76-83 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Andrew G.H. Thompson & Oliver Escobar & Jennifer J. Roberts & Stephen Elstub & Niccole M. Pamphilis, 2021. "The Importance of Context and the Effect of Information and Deliberation on Opinion Change Regarding Environmental Issues in Citizens’ Juries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-21, September.
    13. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Schoon, Rebecca & Chi, Chunhuei & Liu, Tsai-Ching, 2022. "Quantifying public preferences for healthcare priorities in Taiwan through an integrated citizens jury and discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schoon, Rebecca & Chi, Chunhuei & Liu, Tsai-Ching, 2022. "Quantifying public preferences for healthcare priorities in Taiwan through an integrated citizens jury and discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    2. Aguilera, Bernardo & Donya, Razavi s. & Vélez, Claudia-Marcela & Kapiriri, Lydia & Abelson, Julia & Nouvet, Elysee & Danis, Marion & Goold, Susan & Williams, Ieystn & Noorulhuda, Mariam, 2024. "Stakeholder participation in the COVID-19 pandemic preparedness and response plans: A synthesis of findings from 70 countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    3. Amilon, Anna & Kjær, Agnete Aslaug & Ladenburg, Jacob & Siren, Anu, 2022. "Trust in the publicly financed care system and willingness to pay for long-term care: A discrete choice experiment in Denmark," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 311(C).
    4. Verbic, Miroslav & Slabe-Erker, Renata, 2009. "An econometric analysis of willingness-to-pay for sustainable development: A case study of the Volcji Potok landscape area," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1316-1328, March.
    5. Björn Vollan & Karla Henning & Deniza Staewa, 2017. "Do campaigns featuring impact evaluations increase donations? Evidence from a survey experiment," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 500-518, October.
    6. Carol Vargas & Ramón Rosales, 2006. "Valoración Económica De La Prevención Pública De La Malaria En Los Hogares Del Caquetá," Documentos CEDE 3749, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    7. Divine Ikenwilo & Sebastian Heidenreich & Mandy Ryan & Colette Mankowski & Jameel Nazir & Verity Watson, 2018. "The Best of Both Worlds: An Example Mixed Methods Approach to Understand Men’s Preferences for the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(1), pages 55-67, February.
    8. Ivehammar, Pernilla, 2014. "Valuing environmental quality in actual travel time savings – The Haningeleden road project in Stockholm," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 349-356.
    9. Otrachshenko, Vladimir & Tyurina, Elena & Nagapetyan, Artur, 2022. "The economic value of the Glass Beach: Contingent valuation and life satisfaction approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    10. Shokhrukh-Mirzo Jalilov, 2017. "Value of Clean Water Resources: Estimating the Water Quality Improvement in Metro Manila, Philippines," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-15, December.
    11. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    12. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy & Bredahl Jacobsen, Jette & Poudyal, Mahesh & Rasoamanana, Alexandra & Hockley, Neal, 2018. "Estimating welfare impacts where property rights are contested: methodological and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 71-83.
    13. John R. Moodie & Viktor Salenius & Michael Kull, 2022. "From impact assessments towards proactive citizen engagement in EU cohesion policy," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(5), pages 1113-1132, October.
    14. Andy Choi & Franco Papandrea & Jeff Bennett, 2007. "Assessing cultural values: developing an attitudinal scale," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 31(4), pages 311-335, December.
    15. Kerstin K Zander & Gillian B Ainsworth & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Stephen T Garnett, 2014. "Threatened Bird Valuation in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, June.
    16. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas, 2013. "The political economics of social health insurance: the tricky case of individuals’ preferences," MPRA Paper 44534, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Massimo Florio & Francesco Giffoni & Gelsomina Catalano, 2020. "Should governments fund basic science? Evidence from a willingness-to-pay experiment in five universities," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 16-33, January.
    18. Gürlük, Serkan & Ward, Frank A., 2009. "Integrated basin management: Water and food policy options for Turkey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2666-2678, August.
    19. Bergmann, Ariel & Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nicholas & Ready, Richard & Stewart, Mairi & Watson, Fiona, 2008. "The impacts of knowledge of the past on preferences for future landscape change," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2008-05, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    20. Giuseppe Nocella & Lionel Hubbard & Riccardo Scarpa, 2010. "Farm Animal Welfare, Consumer Willingness to Pay, and Trust: Results of a Cross-National Survey," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(2), pages 275-297.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:309:y:2022:i:c:s0277953622005299. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.