Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE): A New Preference-Elicitation Method for Decision Making in Healthcare

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Pub Date : 2023-12-16 DOI:10.1007/s40258-023-00859-9
Sander Boxebeld, Niek Mouter, Job van Exel
{"title":"Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE): A New Preference-Elicitation Method for Decision Making in Healthcare","authors":"Sander Boxebeld,&nbsp;Niek Mouter,&nbsp;Job van Exel","doi":"10.1007/s40258-023-00859-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Participatory value evaluation (PVE) has recently been introduced in the field of health as a new method to elicit stated preferences for public policies. PVE is a method in which respondents in a choice experiment are presented with various policy options and their attributes, and are asked to compose their portfolio of preference given a public-resource constraint. This paper aims to illustrate PVE’s potential for informing healthcare decision making and to position it relative to established preference-elicitation methods. We first describe PVE and its theoretical background. Next, by means of a narrative review of the eight existing PVE applications within and outside the health domain, we illustrate the different implementations of the main features of the method. We then compare PVE to several established preference-elicitation methods in terms of the structure and nature of the choice tasks presented to respondents. The portfolio-based choice task in a PVE requires respondents to consider a set of policy alternatives in relation to each other and to make trade-offs subject to one or more constraints, which more closely resembles decision making by policymakers. When using a flexible budget constraint, respondents can trade-off their private income with public expenditures. Relative to other methods, a PVE may be cognitively more demanding and is less efficient; however, it seems a promising complementary method for the preference-based assessment of health policies. Further research into the feasibility and validity of the method is required before researchers and policymakers can fully appreciate the advantages and disadvantages of the PVE as a preference-elicitation method.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8065,"journal":{"name":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","volume":"22 2","pages":"145 - 154"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40258-023-00859-9","RegionNum":4,"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

Abstract

Participatory value evaluation (PVE) has recently been introduced in the field of health as a new method to elicit stated preferences for public policies. PVE is a method in which respondents in a choice experiment are presented with various policy options and their attributes, and are asked to compose their portfolio of preference given a public-resource constraint. This paper aims to illustrate PVE’s potential for informing healthcare decision making and to position it relative to established preference-elicitation methods. We first describe PVE and its theoretical background. Next, by means of a narrative review of the eight existing PVE applications within and outside the health domain, we illustrate the different implementations of the main features of the method. We then compare PVE to several established preference-elicitation methods in terms of the structure and nature of the choice tasks presented to respondents. The portfolio-based choice task in a PVE requires respondents to consider a set of policy alternatives in relation to each other and to make trade-offs subject to one or more constraints, which more closely resembles decision making by policymakers. When using a flexible budget constraint, respondents can trade-off their private income with public expenditures. Relative to other methods, a PVE may be cognitively more demanding and is less efficient; however, it seems a promising complementary method for the preference-based assessment of health policies. Further research into the feasibility and validity of the method is required before researchers and policymakers can fully appreciate the advantages and disadvantages of the PVE as a preference-elicitation method.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
参与式价值评估 (PVE):用于医疗决策的新偏好征询方法
摘要 最近,参与式价值评估(PVE)作为一种新方法被引入卫生领域,以征求对公共政策的既定偏好。参与式价值评估是一种在选择实验中向受访者展示各种政策选项及其属性的方法,并要求受访者在公共资源有限的情况下组成他们的偏好组合。本文旨在说明 PVE 在为医疗决策提供信息方面的潜力,并将其与现有的偏好征询方法进行比较。我们首先介绍了 PVE 及其理论背景。接着,通过对医疗领域内外现有的八种 PVE 应用的叙述性回顾,我们说明了该方法主要特征的不同实现方式。然后,我们将 PVE 与几种已有的偏好征询方法进行比较,比较的内容包括向受访者提出的选择任务的结构和性质。PVE 中基于组合的选择任务要求受访者考虑一系列政策备选方案之间的相互关系,并在一个或多个约束条件下进行权衡,这与决策者的决策更为相似。在使用灵活预算约束时,受调查者可以在私人收入与公共开支之间进行权衡。与其他方法相比,PVE 对认知的要求可能更高,效率也更低;不过,它似乎是一种很有前途的基于偏好的卫生政策评估补充方法。在研究人员和政策制定者充分认识到 PVE 作为一种偏好征询方法的优缺点之前,还需要对该方法的可行性和有效性进行进一步研究。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics and Econometrics
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy provides timely publication of cutting-edge research and expert opinion from this increasingly important field, making it a vital resource for payers, providers and researchers alike. The journal includes high quality economic research and reviews of all aspects of healthcare from various perspectives and countries, designed to communicate the latest applied information in health economics and health policy. While emphasis is placed on information with practical applications, a strong basis of underlying scientific rigor is maintained.
期刊最新文献
Cost-Effective and Sustainable Drug Use in Hospitals: A Systematic and Practice-Based Approach. Quality-Adjusted Life Expectancy Norms Based on the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 for China. Value is Gendered: The Need for Sex and Gender Considerations in Health Economic Evaluations. Assessing the Direct Impact of Death on Discrete Choice Experiment Utilities. Acknowledgement to Referees.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1