Public preferences for allocating health system resources in Canada: a systematic review.

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Shehzad Ali, Roxanne Garaszczuk, Jessica Moodie, Lauren Cipriano, Lina Ghattas, Samya Ali
{"title":"Public preferences for allocating health system resources in Canada: a systematic review.","authors":"Shehzad Ali, Roxanne Garaszczuk, Jessica Moodie, Lauren Cipriano, Lina Ghattas, Samya Ali","doi":"10.1186/s13643-025-02864-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Conventional economic evaluations are based on the principle of health maximization. However, this approach does not consider societal preferences to prioritize health care for certain social groups and health conditions, and the public concern over health disparities. In recent years, equity-informative economic evaluation methods have been developed to incorporate societal concerns over for health inequities. These methods use quantitative evidence based on preference elicitation exercises to inform allocation of health system resources.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically review Canadian studies that quantify public preferences for allocating health care resource across social groups and health conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three electronic databases were searched on January 1st, 2024: Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and EBSCO EconLit. In addition, the reference lists of relevant papers were also scanned to detect any other suitable studies. The systematic review included studies that met the following criteria: they were survey-based, sampled Canadian residents and involved preference elicitation, where participants made decisions about resource allocation or responded to hypothetical scenarios about redistributing lifetime health. Qualitative studies and non-preference-based studies were excluded. Risk of Bias was assessed using the CLARITY Group's tool for evaluating cross-sectional surveys of attitudes and practices. Two reviewers conducted screening, full-text review, and data extraction. Studies were narratively synthesized.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight studies, with 8,969 participants, were identified that investigated public preferences for prioritizing health care in relation to age, income, disease rarity, and baseline health. Age-related preferences tended to favor children and younger patients over older patients. Aversion to socioeconomic-related health inequality was heterogeneous and was associated with respondent characteristics. No clear preference was found for treatments for rare diseases over common conditions, or for baseline quality of life and life expectancy. Two studies exposed participants to moral reasoning exercises that led to slightly lower levels of preference for prioritization of specific conditions or groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While the identified studies in the review were heterogenous, they provide some evidence supporting the prioritization of healthcare resources for children and younger patients over older patients. There is limited Canadian evidence on societal values related to health inequity associated with socioeconomic status, sex/gender, race/ethnicity, and other social determinants of health. Future research can help bridge this gap.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"128"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12160115/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02864-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Conventional economic evaluations are based on the principle of health maximization. However, this approach does not consider societal preferences to prioritize health care for certain social groups and health conditions, and the public concern over health disparities. In recent years, equity-informative economic evaluation methods have been developed to incorporate societal concerns over for health inequities. These methods use quantitative evidence based on preference elicitation exercises to inform allocation of health system resources.

Objective: To systematically review Canadian studies that quantify public preferences for allocating health care resource across social groups and health conditions.

Methods: Three electronic databases were searched on January 1st, 2024: Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and EBSCO EconLit. In addition, the reference lists of relevant papers were also scanned to detect any other suitable studies. The systematic review included studies that met the following criteria: they were survey-based, sampled Canadian residents and involved preference elicitation, where participants made decisions about resource allocation or responded to hypothetical scenarios about redistributing lifetime health. Qualitative studies and non-preference-based studies were excluded. Risk of Bias was assessed using the CLARITY Group's tool for evaluating cross-sectional surveys of attitudes and practices. Two reviewers conducted screening, full-text review, and data extraction. Studies were narratively synthesized.

Results: Eight studies, with 8,969 participants, were identified that investigated public preferences for prioritizing health care in relation to age, income, disease rarity, and baseline health. Age-related preferences tended to favor children and younger patients over older patients. Aversion to socioeconomic-related health inequality was heterogeneous and was associated with respondent characteristics. No clear preference was found for treatments for rare diseases over common conditions, or for baseline quality of life and life expectancy. Two studies exposed participants to moral reasoning exercises that led to slightly lower levels of preference for prioritization of specific conditions or groups.

Conclusion: While the identified studies in the review were heterogenous, they provide some evidence supporting the prioritization of healthcare resources for children and younger patients over older patients. There is limited Canadian evidence on societal values related to health inequity associated with socioeconomic status, sex/gender, race/ethnicity, and other social determinants of health. Future research can help bridge this gap.

加拿大公众对分配卫生系统资源的偏好:一项系统回顾。
背景:传统的经济评价是基于健康最大化的原则。然而,这一方法没有考虑到优先为某些社会群体和健康状况提供卫生保健的社会偏好,以及公众对卫生差距的关注。近年来,发展了以公平信息为基础的经济评价方法,以纳入社会对卫生不平等的关注。这些方法使用基于偏好启发练习的定量证据,为卫生系统资源的分配提供信息。目的:系统地回顾加拿大的研究,这些研究量化了公众在不同社会群体和健康状况下分配卫生保健资源的偏好。方法:于2024年1月1日检索Ovid Embase、Ovid MEDLINE和EBSCO EconLit 3个电子数据库。此外,还扫描了相关论文的参考文献列表,以发现其他合适的研究。系统回顾包括符合以下标准的研究:它们是基于调查的,抽样的加拿大居民,并涉及偏好引出,参与者对资源分配做出决定,或对重新分配终身健康的假设情景做出反应。定性研究和非偏好研究被排除在外。使用CLARITY集团的工具来评估态度和做法的横断面调查,评估偏倚风险。两名审稿人进行筛选、全文审阅和数据提取。研究是以叙述的方式合成的。结果:确定了8项研究,涉及8,969名参与者,调查了与年龄、收入、疾病罕见度和基线健康相关的公众优先考虑医疗保健的偏好。与年龄相关的偏好倾向于儿童和年轻患者而不是老年患者。对与社会经济相关的健康不平等的厌恶是异质的,并且与被调查者的特征有关。没有发现对罕见疾病治疗的明显偏好高于常见疾病治疗,也没有发现对基线生活质量和预期寿命的明显偏好。两项研究让参与者进行道德推理练习,使他们对特定条件或群体的优先级偏好程度略低。结论:虽然本综述中确定的研究具有异质性,但它们提供了一些证据,支持优先考虑儿童和年轻患者的医疗资源,而不是老年患者。关于与社会经济地位、性别/性别、种族/民族和其他健康社会决定因素相关的健康不平等的社会价值观,加拿大的证据有限。未来的研究可以帮助弥合这一差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信