衡量加拿大对收入相关的健康不平等的厌恶程度:一个公平-效率权衡实验。

IF 6 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Nicolas Iragorri, Shehzad Ali, Sharmistha Mishra, Beate H Sander
{"title":"衡量加拿大对收入相关的健康不平等的厌恶程度:一个公平-效率权衡实验。","authors":"Nicolas Iragorri, Shehzad Ali, Sharmistha Mishra, Beate H Sander","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.06.021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To estimate the extent to which people living in Canada are averse to income-related health inequalities, a critical component for equity-informative economic evaluations but lacking in the Canadian context.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted 3 experiments among a sample of adults living in Canada to elicit value judgements about reducing income-related health inequality versus improving population health. Each experiment compared 2 programs: (experiment 1) universal and tailored vaccination, (experiment 2) nonspecific prevention programs, and (experiment 3) generic healthcare programs. The programs varied in terms of efficiency (additional life-years), and health inequality across income groups. Preferences were elicited using benefit trade-off analysis and were classified as follows: pro-rich (maximizing the health of individuals with the highest income), health maximizer (maximizing total health), weighted prioritarian (willing to trade some health to reduce inequalities), maximin (only improving the health of the individuals with the lowest income), and egalitarian (minimizing health inequalities at all costs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We recruited 1000 participants per experiment. Preferences for the vaccination, prevention, and generic experiments were distributed as follows: pro-rich (aversion parameter <0): 31%, 22%, and 16%, respectively; health maximizers (aversion parameter = 0): 2%, 3%, and 2%, respectively; weighted prioritarians (aversion parameter > 0): 13%, 19%, and 22%, respectively; maximins (aversion parameter = ∞): 0%, 1%, and 3%, respectively; and egalitarian (aversion parameter undefined): 54%, 55%, and 57%, respectively. The median responses reflected a preference for minimizing income-related health inequalities across the 3 experiments.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest a strong aversion to income-related health inequality among the respondents with more than half being classified as egalitarians.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring Aversion to Income-Related Health Inequality in Canada: An Equity-Efficiency Trade-Off Experiment.\",\"authors\":\"Nicolas Iragorri, Shehzad Ali, Sharmistha Mishra, Beate H Sander\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jval.2025.06.021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To estimate the extent to which people living in Canada are averse to income-related health inequalities, a critical component for equity-informative economic evaluations but lacking in the Canadian context.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted 3 experiments among a sample of adults living in Canada to elicit value judgements about reducing income-related health inequality versus improving population health. Each experiment compared 2 programs: (experiment 1) universal and tailored vaccination, (experiment 2) nonspecific prevention programs, and (experiment 3) generic healthcare programs. The programs varied in terms of efficiency (additional life-years), and health inequality across income groups. Preferences were elicited using benefit trade-off analysis and were classified as follows: pro-rich (maximizing the health of individuals with the highest income), health maximizer (maximizing total health), weighted prioritarian (willing to trade some health to reduce inequalities), maximin (only improving the health of the individuals with the lowest income), and egalitarian (minimizing health inequalities at all costs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We recruited 1000 participants per experiment. Preferences for the vaccination, prevention, and generic experiments were distributed as follows: pro-rich (aversion parameter <0): 31%, 22%, and 16%, respectively; health maximizers (aversion parameter = 0): 2%, 3%, and 2%, respectively; weighted prioritarians (aversion parameter > 0): 13%, 19%, and 22%, respectively; maximins (aversion parameter = ∞): 0%, 1%, and 3%, respectively; and egalitarian (aversion parameter undefined): 54%, 55%, and 57%, respectively. The median responses reflected a preference for minimizing income-related health inequalities across the 3 experiments.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest a strong aversion to income-related health inequality among the respondents with more than half being classified as egalitarians.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23508,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Value in Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Value in Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.06.021\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.06.021","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:估计居住在加拿大的人对与收入有关的健康不平等的反感程度,这是公平信息经济评估的一个重要组成部分,但在加拿大情况下缺乏。方法:我们在加拿大的成年人样本中进行了三个实验,以引出关于减少与收入相关的健康不平等与改善人口健康的价值判断。每个实验比较了两个方案:(实验1)普遍接种和定制接种;(实验2)非特异性预防方案;(实验3)普通医疗保健计划。这些项目在效率(额外寿命)和不同收入群体的健康不平等方面各不相同。使用利益交换分析得出偏好,并将其分类为:亲富人(最大限度地提高收入最高的个人的健康);生命值最大化器(使总生命值最大化);加权优先主义(愿意牺牲一些健康来减少不平等);Maximin(仅改善收入最低的个人的健康);平等主义(不惜一切代价最小化健康不平等)。结果:每次实验我们招募了1000名参与者。对疫苗接种、预防和普通实验的偏好分布如下:亲富(厌恶参数0):分别为13%、19%和22%;最大值(厌恶参数=∞):分别为0%、1%和3%;平等主义(厌恶参数未定义):分别为54%、55%和57%。中位数反应反映了在三个实验中倾向于尽量减少与收入有关的健康不平等。结论:我们的研究结果表明,受访者对收入相关的健康不平等有强烈的厌恶,超过一半的受访者被归类为平等主义者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Measuring Aversion to Income-Related Health Inequality in Canada: An Equity-Efficiency Trade-Off Experiment.

Objectives: To estimate the extent to which people living in Canada are averse to income-related health inequalities, a critical component for equity-informative economic evaluations but lacking in the Canadian context.

Methods: We conducted 3 experiments among a sample of adults living in Canada to elicit value judgements about reducing income-related health inequality versus improving population health. Each experiment compared 2 programs: (experiment 1) universal and tailored vaccination, (experiment 2) nonspecific prevention programs, and (experiment 3) generic healthcare programs. The programs varied in terms of efficiency (additional life-years), and health inequality across income groups. Preferences were elicited using benefit trade-off analysis and were classified as follows: pro-rich (maximizing the health of individuals with the highest income), health maximizer (maximizing total health), weighted prioritarian (willing to trade some health to reduce inequalities), maximin (only improving the health of the individuals with the lowest income), and egalitarian (minimizing health inequalities at all costs).

Results: We recruited 1000 participants per experiment. Preferences for the vaccination, prevention, and generic experiments were distributed as follows: pro-rich (aversion parameter <0): 31%, 22%, and 16%, respectively; health maximizers (aversion parameter = 0): 2%, 3%, and 2%, respectively; weighted prioritarians (aversion parameter > 0): 13%, 19%, and 22%, respectively; maximins (aversion parameter = ∞): 0%, 1%, and 3%, respectively; and egalitarian (aversion parameter undefined): 54%, 55%, and 57%, respectively. The median responses reflected a preference for minimizing income-related health inequalities across the 3 experiments.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest a strong aversion to income-related health inequality among the respondents with more than half being classified as egalitarians.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
×
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