“…This was expected because in the first few questions the large and small populations were both in severe states of health (2) As the large number of patients was moved to less severe conditions, however, the presumption of priority to the larger population weakened. Participants expressed a willingness to some extent to sacrifice numbers for the sake of prioritizing the worst off (3) Lack of alternative treatments or options to manage symptoms, particularly pain, took priority over large numbers (4) The findings of the study indicate that respondents would support giving priority to a smaller but more severely ill patient population over a larger patient population when prioritizing the needs of the few is lifesaving, extends life enough to give hope of future improvement, and relieves otherwise intractable symptoms, especially pain Song et al (2018) [ 51 ] | Korea | Society | Personal | Contingent valuation | NR | (+) | NR | (+) | (2) The WTP/QALY based on double-bounded dichotomous choice method was about two times greater for scenarios with severe illness compared with scenarios with moderate illness, except when the treatment was curative (in which situation, WTP appeared to reach a plateau) (4) The WTP for prolonged treatment effects lasting 5 and 10 years and cure scenarios were 1.4, 1.8, and 2.3 times greater, respectively, than in the non-cure scenario (where the treatment effect instantly stopped when treatment was discontinued) |
Schlander et al (2018) [ 37 ] | Switzerland | Society | Not specified | DCE | (+) | NR | NR | NR | (1) The study provides support for the importance of health state before and after intervention, age, disease prevalence (rarity) and availability of social health insurance as driver of societal preference |
Richardson et al (2017) [ 20 ] | Australia | Society | Personal + health care DM | Rating + TO | NR | (+) | NR | (−) | (2) The study supports the “severity hypothesis” that implies that a health service increasing a patient’s utility by a fixed amount will be valued greater when the initial health state is more severe (i.e., a social preference for additional priority for services for severe health states). Weights vary significantly from almost 3.0, in which there is maxim... |
…”