IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v27y2018i5p819-831.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Helen Mason
  • Marissa Collins
  • Neil McHugh
  • Jon Godwin
  • Job Van Exel
  • Cam Donaldson
  • Rachel Baker

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Helen Mason & Marissa Collins & Neil McHugh & Jon Godwin & Job Van Exel & Cam Donaldson & Rachel Baker, 2018. "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," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(5), pages 819-831, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:27:y:2018:i:5:p:819-831
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.3640
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3640
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.3640?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. van Exel, Job & Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & Donaldson, Cam & Brouwer, Werner, 2015. "Public views on principles for health care priority setting: Findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 128-137.
    2. Rachel Baker & John Wildman & Helen Mason & Cam Donaldson, 2014. "Q‐Ing For Health—A New Approach To Eliciting The Public'S Views On Health Care Resource Allocation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 283-297, March.
    3. Mason, Helen & van Exel, Job & Baker, Rachel & Brouwer, Werner & Donaldson, Cam, 2016. "From representing views to representativeness of views: Illustrating a new (Q2S) approach in the context of health care priority setting in nine European countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 205-213.
    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. McHugh, Neil & Pinto-Prades, José Luis & Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & Donaldson, Cam, 2020. "Exploring the relative value of end of life QALYs: Are the comparators important?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    2. Reckers-Droog, Vivian & Jansen, Maarten & Bijlmakers, Leon & Baltussen, Rob & Brouwer, Werner & van Exel, Job, 2020. "How does participating in a deliberative citizens panel on healthcare priority setting influence the views of participants?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 143-151.

    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. Reckers-Droog, Vivian & Jansen, Maarten & Bijlmakers, Leon & Baltussen, Rob & Brouwer, Werner & van Exel, Job, 2020. "How does participating in a deliberative citizens panel on healthcare priority setting influence the views of participants?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 143-151.
    2. McHugh, Neil & van Exel, Job & Mason, Helen & Godwin, Jon & Collins, Marissa & Donaldson, Cam & Baker, Rachel, 2018. "Are life-extending treatments for terminal illnesses a special case? Exploring choices and societal viewpoints," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 61-69.
    3. Rotteveel, Adriënne H. & Lambooij, Mattijs S. & van Exel, Job & de Wit, G. Ardine, 2022. "To what extent do citizens support the disinvestment of healthcare interventions? An exploration of the support for four viewpoints on active disinvestment in the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 293(C).
    4. Scheefhals, Zoë T.M. & de Vries, Eline F. & Struijs, Jeroen N. & Numans, Mattijs E. & van Exel, Job, 2024. "Stakeholder perspectives on payment reform in maternity care in the Netherlands: A Q-methodology study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 340(C).
    5. Mason, Helen & van Exel, Job & Baker, Rachel & Brouwer, Werner & Donaldson, Cam, 2016. "From representing views to representativeness of views: Illustrating a new (Q2S) approach in the context of health care priority setting in nine European countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 205-213.
    6. Rotteveel, A.H. & Reckers-Droog, V.T. & Lambooij, M.S. & de Wit, G.A. & van Exel, N.J.A., 2021. "Societal views in the Netherlands on active disinvestment of publicly funded healthcare interventions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 272(C).
    7. van Hulsen, Merel A.J. & Rohde, Kirsten I.M. & van Exel, Job, 2023. "Preferences for investment in and allocation of additional healthcare capacity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 320(C).
    8. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    9. Jorge Barros-Garcia-Imhof & Andrés Jiménez-Alfonso & Inés Gómez-Acebo & María Fernández-Ortiz & Jéssica Alonso-Molero & Javier Llorca & Alejandro Gonzalez-Castro & Trinidad Dierssen-Sotos, 2022. "Perception of Medical Students on the Need for End-of-Life Care: A Q-Methodology Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-16, June.
    10. van Exel, Job & Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & Donaldson, Cam & Brouwer, Werner, 2015. "Public views on principles for health care priority setting: Findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 128-137.
    11. Werner Brouwer & Pieter Baal & Job Exel & Matthijs Versteegh, 2019. "When is it too expensive? Cost-effectiveness thresholds and health care decision-making," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 175-180, March.
    12. Jana Rogge & Bernhard Kittel, 2016. "Who Shall Not Be Treated: Public Attitudes on Setting Health Care Priorities by Person-Based Criteria in 28 Nations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-15, June.
    13. Ahlert, Marlies & Breyer, Friedrich & Schwettmann, Lars, 2016. "How you ask is what you get: Framing effects in willingness-to-pay for a QALY," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 40-48.
    14. Emanuel Stoeckli & Christian Dremel & Falk Uebernickel & Walter Brenner, 2020. "How affordances of chatbots cross the chasm between social and traditional enterprise systems," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 30(2), pages 369-403, June.
    15. Wouters, S. & van Exel, N.J.A. & Rohde, K.I.M. & Vromen, J.J. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2017. "Acceptable health and priority weighting: Discussing a reference-level approach using sufficientarian reasoning," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 158-167.
    16. Daphne Truijens & Job van Exel, 2019. "Views on deceased organ donation in the Netherlands: A q-methodology study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-15, May.
    17. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:6:p:1379-1391 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Persson, Emil & Tinghög, Gustav, 2020. "Opportunity cost neglect in public policy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 301-312.
    19. Wildman, John & McMeekin, Peter & Grieve, Eleanor & Briggs, Andrew, 2016. "Economic evaluation of integrated new technologies for health and social care: Suggestions for policy makers, users and evaluators," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 141-148.
    20. Lesley Chim & Glenn Salkeld & Patrick Kelly & Wendy Lipworth & Dyfrig A Hughes & Martin R Stockler, 2017. "Societal perspective on access to publicly subsidised medicines: A cross sectional survey of 3080 adults in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, March.
    21. Chamberlain, Charlotte & Owen-Smith, Amanda & MacKichan, Fiona & Donovan, Jenny L. & Hollingworth, William, 2019. "“What’s fair to an individual is not always fair to a population”: A qualitative study of patients and their health professionals using the Cancer Drugs Fund," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(8), pages 706-712.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:hlthec:v:27:y:2018:i:5:p:819-831. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.