{"title":"Eliciting public preferences across health and wellbeing dimensions: An equivalent income value set for SIPHER-7","authors":"An Ta, Bert Van Landeghem, Aki Tsuchiya","doi":"10.1002/hec.4890","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The call for “health and wellbeing in all policies” requires a preference-based measure that collapses multi-dimensional health and wellbeing into a single index, such as equivalent income. We aim to elicit preferences of the UK general public to estimate a value set for a suite of seven commonly used wellbeing indicators including health, income, and other dimensions, in terms of equivalent income. Secondly, we examine heterogeneous preferences by gender, by age, and by income. Thirdly, we explore the stability of preferences, since the survey took place amid the pandemic, possibly affecting preferences over health and wellbeing. Effects of attrition and of time are distinguished. Data were collected online across two waves using Discrete Choice Experiments through an internet panel (<i>N</i>1 = 3362; and <i>N</i>2 = 3357). The regression coefficients for all the ordered attribute levels have the expected sign, are significant, and ordered. Equivalent income was found to vary up to 10% by gender and by age (both significant) and 4% by income (not significant), while the effect of time was up to 16% (significant). The study facilitates the calculation of overall wellbeing in terms of equivalent income based on the preferences of the UK public, where the relevant wellbeing indicators are available.</p>","PeriodicalId":12847,"journal":{"name":"Health economics","volume":"33 12","pages":"2723-2741"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hec.4890","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hec.4890","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The call for “health and wellbeing in all policies” requires a preference-based measure that collapses multi-dimensional health and wellbeing into a single index, such as equivalent income. We aim to elicit preferences of the UK general public to estimate a value set for a suite of seven commonly used wellbeing indicators including health, income, and other dimensions, in terms of equivalent income. Secondly, we examine heterogeneous preferences by gender, by age, and by income. Thirdly, we explore the stability of preferences, since the survey took place amid the pandemic, possibly affecting preferences over health and wellbeing. Effects of attrition and of time are distinguished. Data were collected online across two waves using Discrete Choice Experiments through an internet panel (N1 = 3362; and N2 = 3357). The regression coefficients for all the ordered attribute levels have the expected sign, are significant, and ordered. Equivalent income was found to vary up to 10% by gender and by age (both significant) and 4% by income (not significant), while the effect of time was up to 16% (significant). The study facilitates the calculation of overall wellbeing in terms of equivalent income based on the preferences of the UK public, where the relevant wellbeing indicators are available.
期刊介绍:
This Journal publishes articles on all aspects of health economics: theoretical contributions, empirical studies and analyses of health policy from the economic perspective. Its scope includes the determinants of health and its definition and valuation, as well as the demand for and supply of health care; planning and market mechanisms; micro-economic evaluation of individual procedures and treatments; and evaluation of the performance of health care systems.
Contributions should typically be original and innovative. As a rule, the Journal does not include routine applications of cost-effectiveness analysis, discrete choice experiments and costing analyses.
Editorials are regular features, these should be concise and topical. Occasionally commissioned reviews are published and special issues bring together contributions on a single topic. Health Economics Letters facilitate rapid exchange of views on topical issues. Contributions related to problems in both developed and developing countries are welcome.