IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v37y2017i6p635-646.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Robust Are Value Judgments of Health Inequality Aversion? Testing for Framing and Cognitive Effects

Author

Listed:
  • Shehzad Ali
  • Aki Tsuchiya
  • Miqdad Asaria
  • Richard Cookson

Abstract

Background. Empirical studies have found that members of the public are inequality averse and value health gains for disadvantaged groups with poor health many times more highly than gains for better off groups. However, these studies typically use abstract scenarios that involve unrealistically large reductions in health inequality and face-to-face survey administration. It is not known how robust these findings are to more realistic scenarios or anonymous online survey administration. Methods. This study aimed to test the robustness of questionnaire estimates of inequality aversion by comparing the following: 1) small versus unrealistically large health inequality reductions, 2) population-level versus individual-level descriptions of health inequality reductions, 3) concrete versus abstract intervention scenarios, and 4) online versus face-to-face mode of administration. Fifty-two members of the public participated in face-to-face discussion groups, while 83 members of the public completed an online survey. Participants were given a questionnaire instrument with different scenario descriptions for eliciting aversion to social inequality in health. Results. The median respondent was inequality averse under all scenarios. Scenarios involving small rather than unrealistically large health gains made little difference in terms of inequality aversion, as did population-level rather than individual-level scenarios. However, the proportion expressing extreme inequality aversion fell 19 percentage points when considering a specific health intervention scenario rather than an abstract scenario and was 11 to 21 percentage points lower among online public respondents compared with the discussion group. Conclusions. Our study suggests that both concrete scenarios and online administration reduce the proportion expressing extreme inequality aversion but still yield median responses that imply substantial health inequality aversion.

Suggested Citation

  • Shehzad Ali & Aki Tsuchiya & Miqdad Asaria & Richard Cookson, 2017. "How Robust Are Value Judgments of Health Inequality Aversion? Testing for Framing and Cognitive Effects," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(6), pages 635-646, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:6:p:635-646
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X17700842
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X17700842
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X17700842?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sunghan Kim & David Goldstein & Lynn Hasher & Rose T. Zacks, 2005. "Framing Effects in Younger and Older Adults," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 60(4), pages 215-218.
    2. Shah, Koonal K. & Cookson, Richard & Culyer, Anthony J. & Littlejohns, Peter, 2013. "NICE's social value judgements about equity in health and health care," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 145-165, April.
    3. Olsen, Jan Abel, 2000. "A note on eliciting distributive preferences for health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 541-550, July.
    4. Ashwani Monga & Rajesh Bagchi, 2012. "Years, Months, and Days versus 1, 12, and 365: The Influence of Units versus Numbers," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 39(1), pages 185-198.
    5. Damschroder, Laura J. & Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. & Ubel, Peter A., 2005. "The impact of considering adaptation in health state valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 267-277, July.
    6. Richard Norman & Jane Hall & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "Efficiency And Equity: A Stated Preference Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 568-581, May.
    7. Abasolo, Ignacio & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2004. "Exploring social welfare functions and violation of monotonicity: an example from inequalities in health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 313-329, March.
    8. Aki Tsuchiya & Paul Dolan, 2009. "Equality of what in health? Distinguishing between outcome egalitarianism and gain egalitarianism," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 147-159, February.
    9. Gu, Yuanyuan & Lancsar, Emily & Ghijben, Peter & Butler, James RG & Donaldson, Cam, 2015. "Attributes and weights in health care priority setting: A systematic review of what counts and to what extent," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 41-52.
    10. Eva Rodríguez‐Míguez & José‐Luis Pinto‐Prades, 2002. "Measuring the social importance of concentration or dispersion of individual health benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 43-53, January.
    11. Abasolo, Ignacio & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2004. "Exploring social welfare functions and violation of monotonicity: an example from inequalities in health--a reply to Jan Abel Olsen," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 333-334, March.
    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. McNamara, Simon & Tsuchiya, Aki & Holmes, John, 2021. "Does the UK-public's aversion to inequalities in health differ by group-labelling and health-gain type? A choice-experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    2. Joan Costa-i-Font & Frank Cowell, 2019. "Incorporating Inequality Aversion in Health-Care Priority Setting," CESifo Working Paper Series 7503, CESifo.
    3. Richard Cookson & Shehzad Ali & Aki Tsuchiya & Miqdad Asaria, 2018. "E‐learning and health inequality aversion: A questionnaire experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(11), pages 1754-1771, November.
    4. Simon McNamara & John Holmes & Abigail K. Stevely & Aki Tsuchiya, 2020. "How averse are the UK general public to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups? A systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(2), pages 275-285, March.

    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. Simon McNamara & John Holmes & Abigail K. Stevely & Aki Tsuchiya, 2020. "How averse are the UK general public to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups? A systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(2), pages 275-285, March.
    2. Aki Tsuchiya, 2012. "Distributional Judgements in the Context of Economic Evaluation," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 38, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Gu, Yuanyuan & Lancsar, Emily & Ghijben, Peter & Butler, James RG & Donaldson, Cam, 2015. "Attributes and weights in health care priority setting: A systematic review of what counts and to what extent," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 41-52.
    4. McNamara, Simon & Tsuchiya, Aki & Holmes, John, 2021. "Does the UK-public's aversion to inequalities in health differ by group-labelling and health-gain type? A choice-experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    5. Mæstad, Ottar & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2012. "A universal preference for equality in health? Reasons to reconsider properties of applied social welfare functions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(10), pages 1836-1843.
    6. Gemma Lasseter & Hareth Al-Janabi & Caroline L Trotter & Fran E Carroll & Hannah Christensen, 2018. "The views of the general public on prioritising vaccination programmes against childhood diseases: A qualitative study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, June.
    7. Robson, Matthew & O’Donnell, Owen & Van Ourti, Tom, 2024. "Aversion to health inequality — Pure, income-related and income-caused," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    8. Thomas Kourouxous & Thomas Bauer, 2019. "Violations of dominance in decision-making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 209-239, April.
    9. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Clara Mukuria & Anju Keetharuth & Arne Risa Hole & Aki Tsuchiya & Sophie Whyte & Phil Shackley, 2016. "Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 210-222, February.
    10. Edward Henry & John Cullinan, 2024. "Addressing the distributional consequences of spillovers in health economic evaluation: A prioritarian approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(4), pages 764-778, April.
    11. Duncan Mortimer, 2006. "The Value of Thinly Spread QALYs," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 845-853, September.
    12. Paul Dolan & Rebecca Shaw & Aki Tsuchiya & Alan Williams, 2005. "QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 197-208, February.
    13. Abellán Perpiñán, José Mª & Sánchez Martínez,Fernando I. & Martínez Pérez, Jorge E., 2007. "La medición del bienestar social relacionado con la salud/The Measurement of the Health Related Social Welfare," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 25, pages 927-950, Diciembre.
    14. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier & Pinto, Jose Luis, 2015. "Estimating sign-dependent societal preferences for quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 229-243.
    15. Matthew Robson & Miqdad Asaria & Richard Cookson & Aki Tsuchiya & Shehzad Ali, 2017. "Eliciting the Level of Health Inequality Aversion in England," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(10), pages 1328-1334, October.
    16. Dutta, Indranil, 2007. "Health inequality and non-monotonicity of the health related social welfare function: A rejoinder," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 426-429, March.
    17. Oded Stark & Fryderyk Falniowski & Marcin Jakubek, 2017. "Consensus Income Distribution," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 63(4), pages 899-911, December.
    18. Ignacio Abásolo & Aki Tsuchiya, 2013. "Inequality and Risk Aversion in Health and Income: An Empirical Analysis Using Hypothetical Scenarios with Losses," Working Papers 2013005, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics.
    19. Anita Lal & Mohammad Siahpush & Marjory Moodie & Anna Peeters & Robert Carter, 2018. "Weighting Health Outcomes by Socioeconomic Position Using Stated Preferences," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 43-51, March.
    20. Ignacio Abásolo & Aki Tsuchiya, 2013. "Egalitarianism and Altruism in Health: To What Extent Are They Related?," Working Papers 2013003, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics.

    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:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:6:p:635-646. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.