Eliciting Public Preference for Health-Care Resource Allocation in South Korea

Lim, Min Kyoung; Bae, Eun Young; Choi, Sang-Eun; Lee, Eui Kyung; Lee, Tae-Jin

doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.11.014

Cited by 26 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of these 15 studies, 5 studies reported using content analysis 36,42–45 and 2 studies (2%) reported using framework analysis. 46,47 Other analytical approaches included the use of grounded theory methods such as the constant comparative method 48 and open-ended coding. 49 Three studies detailed the use of specialist qualitative software: 2 studies 36,50 (2%) used NVivo, and 1 study 51 used Atlas.ti.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Qualitative Research Methods in Discrete Choice Experiments

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. The use of qualitative research (QR) methods is recommended as good practice in discrete choice experiments (DCEs). This study investigated the use and reporting of QR to inform the design and/or interpretation of healthcare-related DCEs and explored the perceived usefulness of such methods. Methods. DCEs were identified from a systematic search of the MEDLINE database. Studies were classified by the quantity of QR reported (none, basic, or extensive). Authors (n = 91) of papers reporting the use of QR were invited to complete an online survey eliciting their views about using the methods. Results. A total of 254 healthcare DCEs were included in the review; of these, 111 (44%) did not report using any qualitative methods; 114 (45%) reported “basic” information; and 29 (11%) reported or cited “extensive” use of qualitative methods. Studies reporting the use of qualitative methods used them to select attributes and/or levels (n = 95; 66%) and/or pilot the DCE survey (n = 26; 18%). Popular qualitative methods included focus groups (n = 63; 44%) and interviews (n = 109; 76%). Forty-four studies (31%) reported the analytical approach, with content (n = 10; 7%) and framework analysis (n = 5; 4%) most commonly reported. The survey identified that all responding authors (n = 50; 100%) found that qualitative methods added value to their DCE study, but many (n = 22; 44%) reported that journals were uninterested in the reporting of QR results. Conclusions. Despite recommendations that QR methods be used alongside DCEs, the use of QR methods is not consistently reported. The lack of reporting risks the inference that QR methods are of little use in DCE research, contradicting practitioners’ assessments. Explicit guidelines would enable more clarity and consistency in reporting, and journals should facilitate such reporting via online supplementary materials.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Qualitative Research Methods in Discrete Choice Experiments

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The burden and prevalence of diseases are among the most influential criteria for allocating health resources. All around the world, policymakers consider the severity of illness as an important criterion for prioritizing (31). The burden of diseases, which includes the most important causes of death and disability, is a highly valuable indicator for planning health interventions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying Key Factors Related to the Resource Allocation in the Health Sector of the Iranian Oil Industry: Application of DEMATEL Method

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Resource allocation is one of the major challenges of health systems. Various criteria are used to allocate health resources worldwide. Objectives: The current study aimed to identify and prioritize key factors related to the resource allocation in the health sector of the Iranian Oil Industry using the Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) method. Methods: This cross-sectional case study was conducted in two main phases during 2017. In the first phase, the literature review and interviews with experts (n = 6) were used to identify initial criteria for resource allocation. Then, considering the views of high and middle managers in the health sector of the Iranian Oil Industry, the final criteria were selected. In the second phase, the DEMATEL technique was used to assess the interactions among the selected criteria. Results: A total of nine criteria were entered into the DEMATEL final questionnaire. Criteria were divided into two main groups of influencing and influenced factors. The high-level documents and general policies of the health system (C1), the burden of diseases (C2), the number of population covered (C4), the infrastructure of the covered regions (C5), and population health needs (C8) were among factors that influenced other factors. Factors such as current budget (C3), the expected benefits of people (C6), the expected benefits of policymakers (C7), and the financial returns of the resource allocation (C9) were among the factors that were influenced by other factors. The number of covered population (C4) and the infrastructure of the regions (C5) were not influenced by other factors but could affect other factors. High-level documents (C1) and the burden of diseases (C2) were identified as independent factors. Conclusions: While allocating resources, policymakers should pay particular attention to influencing factors. The number of population covered in each region and the infrastructure available in each region were identified as key and important criteria in the resource allocation process. It is suggested that these factors be considered while allocating resources to different regions of the country.

show abstract

“…Severity of illness at the individual level is widely accepted as primary importance to be adopted with the effectiveness of treatment in diverse settings. Use of severity as a priority indicator has been seen in countries such as South Korea [ 59 ] and Uganda [ 60 ], and has established significance in developed countries through its use in many National Health Services (such as the Norwegian, Finnish, French, Spanish, German and Swedish NHS) [ 61 ]. Its major presence (75% of the identified articles) might be due to its relatively easy measurement and link with measurable outcomes with associated costs and health effects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting for equity considerations in cost-effectiveness analysis: a systematic review of rotavirus vaccine in low- and middle-income countries

Boujaoude

Mirelman

Dalziel

et al. 2018

Cost Eff Resour Alloc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is frequently used as an input for guiding priority setting in health. However, CEA seldom incorporates information about trade-offs between total health gains and equity impacts of interventions. This study investigates to what extent equity considerations have been taken into account in CEA in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), using rotavirus vaccination as a case study.MethodsSpecific equity-related indicators for vaccination were first mapped to the Guidance on Priority Setting in Health Care (GPS-Health) checklist criteria. Economic evaluations of rotavirus vaccine in LMICs identified via a systematic review of the literature were assessed to explore the extent to which equity was considered in the research objectives and analysis, and whether it was reflected in the evaluation results.ResultsThe mapping process resulted in 18 unique indicators. Under the ‘disease and intervention’ criteria, severity of illness was incorporated in 75% of the articles, age distribution of the disease in 70%, and presence of comorbidities in 5%. For the ‘social groups’ criteria, relative coverage reflecting wealth-based coverage inequality was taken into account in 30% of the articles, geographic location in 27%, household income level in 8%, and sex at birth in 5%. For the criteria of ‘protection against the financial and social effects of ill health’, age weighting was incorporated in 43% of the articles, societal perspective in 58%, caregiver’s loss of productivity in 45%, and financial risk protection in 5%. Overall, some articles incorporated the indicators in their model inputs (20%) while the majority (80%) presented results (costs, health outcomes, or incremental cost-effectiveness ratios) differentiated according to the indicators. Critically, less than a fifth (17%) of articles incorporating indicators did so due to an explicit study objective related to capturing equity considerations. Most indicators were increasingly incorporated over time, with a notable exception of age-weighting of DALYs.ConclusionIntegrating equity criteria in CEA can help policy-makers better understand the distributional impact of health interventions. This study illustrates how equity considerations are currently being incorporated within CEA of rotavirus vaccination and highlights the components of equity that have been used in studies in LMICs. Areas for further improvement are identified.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12962-018-0102-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Eliciting Public Preference for Health-Care Resource Allocation in South Korea

Abstract: The results showed that Koreans support not only health maximization but also equal opportunity, fair resource allocation, and equality.

Cited by 26 publications

References 15 publications

The Role of Qualitative Research Methods in Discrete Choice Experiments

The Role of Qualitative Research Methods in Discrete Choice Experiments

Identifying Key Factors Related to the Resource Allocation in the Health Sector of the Iranian Oil Industry: Application of DEMATEL Method

Accounting for equity considerations in cost-effectiveness analysis: a systematic review of rotavirus vaccine in low- and middle-income countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About