Impact of information and deliberation on the consistency of preferences for prioritization in health care – evidence from discrete choice experiments undertaken alongside citizens’ juries

References

• Caddy J, Vergez C. Citizens as partners: information, consultation and public participation in policy-making. Paris: organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Whitty JA, Lancsar E, Rixon K, et al. A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting. Patient. 2014;7(4):365–386. doi: 10.1007/s40271-014-0063-2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hougaard JL, Tjur T, Osterdal LP. On the meaningfulness of testing preference axioms in stated preference discrete choice experiments. Eur J Health Econ. 2012;13(4):409–417. doi: 10.1007/s10198-011-0312-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitty JA, Burton P, Kendall E, et al. Harnessing the potential to quantify public preferences for healthcare priorities through citizens’ juries. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2014;3(2):57–62. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2014.61.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shiell A, Seymour J, Hawe P, et al. Are preferences over health states complete? [research support, Non-U.S. Gov’t]. Health Econ. 2000;9(1):47–55. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(200001)9:1<47::AID-HEC485>3.0.CO;2-L.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan P, Cookson R, Ferguson B. Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public’s views of priority setting in health care: focus group study [empirical. BMJ. 1999;318(7188):916–919.] doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7188.916.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McTaggart-Cowan H. Elicitation of informed general population health state utility values: a review of the literature [research support, Non-U.S. Gov’t review]. Value Health. 2011;14(8):1153–1157. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.05.046.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scuffham PA, Whitty JA, Mitchell A, et al. The use of QALY weights for QALY calculations: a review of industry submissions requesting listing on the Australian pharmaceutical benefits scheme 2002–4. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(4):297–310. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200826040-00003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferso Center. Citizens jury handbook. The Jefferson center for new democratic processes. Minnesota: Jefferso Center; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Mooney GA. Handbook on citizens’ juries with particular reference to health care. 2010. Available from: https://newdemocracy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/docs_researchpapers_Mooney_CJ_BookJanuary2010.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Mooney GH, Blackwell SH. Whose health service is it anyway? Community values in healthcare. Med J Aust. 2004;180(2):76–78. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2004.tb05804.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menon D, Stafinski T. Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens’ Jury. Health Expect. 2008;11(3):282–293. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00501.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iredale R, Longley M, Thomas C, et al. What choices should we be able to make about designer babies? A citizens’ jury of young people in South Wales. Health Expect. 2006;9(3):207–217. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2006.00387.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paul C, Nicholls R, Priest P, et al. Making policy decisions about population screening for breast cancer: the role of citizens’ deliberation. Health Policy. 2008;85(3):314–320. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.08.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Jefferson Center. Citizens Jury handbook: the Jefferson center for new democratic processes. 2004 [cited 2011 Nov 21]. http://jefferson-center.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Citizen-Jury-Handbook.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Elwyn G, Miron-Shatz T. Deliberation before determination: the definition and evaluation of good decision making. Health Expect. 2010;13(2):139–147. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00572.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson S, Bryan S. Does the process of deliberation change individuals’ health state valuations? An exploratory study using the person trade-off technique [research support, Non-U.S. Gov’t]. Value Health. 2013;16(5):806–813. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.03.1633.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witt J, Elwyn G, Wood F, et al. Decision making and coping in healthcare: the coping in deliberation (CODE) framework [review]. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;88(2):256–261. Augdoi: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.03.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abelson J, Eyles J, McLeod CB, et al. Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting. Health Policy. 2003;66(1):95–106. Octdoi: 10.1016/s0168-8510(03)00048-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scuffham PA, Ratcliffe J, Kendall E, et al. Engaging the public in healthcare decision-making: quantifying preferences for healthcare through citizens’ juries. BMJ Open. 2014;4(5):e005437. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colquitt JL, Pickett K, Loveman E, et al. Surgery for weight loss in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2014(8):CD003641. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003641.pub4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Korda RJ, Joshy G, Jorm LR, et al. Inequalities in bariatric surgery in Australia: findings from 49,364 obese participants in a prospective cohort study [research support, Non-U.S. Gov’t]. Med J Aust. 2012;197(11):631–636. Dec 10doi: 10.5694/mja12.11035.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitty JA, Ratcliffe J, Kendall E, et al. Prioritising patients for bariatric surgery: building public preferences from a discrete choice experiment into public policy. BMJ Open. 2015;5(10):e008919. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008919.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Persson E, Andersson D, Back L, et al. Discrepancy between health care rationing at the bedside and policy level. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(7):881–887. Octdoi: 10.1177/0272989X18793637.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scuffham PA, Krinks R, Chalkidou K, et al. Recommendations from two citizens’ juries on the surgical management of obesity. Obes Surg. 2018;28(6):1745–1752. Jundoi: 10.1007/s11695-017-3089-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abelson J, Forest PG, Eyles J, et al. Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(2):239–251. Juldoi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00343-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas R, Sims R, Degeling C, et al. CJCheck stage 1: development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries – Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996–2015. Health Expect. 2017;20(4):626–637. doi: 10.1111/hex.12493.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall D, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research PracticesTask force. Value Health. 2013;16(1):3–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall D, Bridges JFP, Hauber B, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health – How are studies being designed and reported? [review]. Patient. 2010;3(4):249–256. doi: 10.2165/11539650-000000000-00000.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Littlejohns P, Rawlins M. Patients, the public and priorities in healthcare. Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing Ltd.; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Rawlins MD. Pharmacopolitics and deliberative democracy [discussion]. Clin Med. 2005;5(5):471–475. doi: 10.7861/clinmedicine.5-5-471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weale A, Kieslich K, Littlejohns P, et al. Introduction: priority setting, equitable access and public involvement in health care. J Health Organ Manag. 2016;30(5):736–750. doi: 10.1108/JHOM-03-2016-0036.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness: establishing a fair process for priority setting is easier than agreeing on principles. Br Med J. 2000;321(7272):1300–1301. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7272.1300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health-a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–413. Jundoi: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veldwijk J, Johansson JV, Donkers B, et al. Mimicking real-life decision making in health: allowing respondents time to think in a discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2020;23(7):945–952. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.02.014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reckers-Droog V, Jansen M, Bijlmakers L, et al. How does participating in a deliberative citizens panel on healthcare priority setting influence the views of participants? Health Policy. 2020;124(2):143–151. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.11.011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colby H, DeWitt J, Chapman GB. Grouping promotes equality: the effect of recipient grouping on allocation of limited medical resources. Psychol Sci. 2015;26(7):1084–1089. doi: 10.1177/0956797615583978.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boulianne S, Loptson K, Kahane D. Citizen panels and opinion polls: convergence and divergence in policy preferences. J Public Delib. 2018;14(1):4.
   Google Scholar
• Baltussen R, Marsh K, Thokala P, et al. Multicriteria decision analysis to support health technology assessment agencies: benefits, limitations, and the way forward. Value Health. 2019;22(11):1283–1288. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.06.014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thokala P, Duenas A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health. 2012;15(8):1172–1181. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.06.015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar