激发公众对健康和福祉各方面的偏好:SIPHER-7 的等值收入集。

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 ECONOMICS Health economics Pub Date : 2024-08-27 DOI:10.1002/hec.4890
An Ta, Bert Van Landeghem, Aki Tsuchiya
{"title":"激发公众对健康和福祉各方面的偏好:SIPHER-7 的等值收入集。","authors":"An Ta, Bert Van Landeghem, Aki Tsuchiya","doi":"10.1002/hec.4890","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><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 (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.</p>","PeriodicalId":12847,"journal":{"name":"Health economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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><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 (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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12847,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/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

摘要

呼吁 "将健康和福祉纳入所有政策 "需要一种基于偏好的衡量标准,将多维度的健康和福祉整合为单一指数,如等值收入。我们的目标是征求英国普通公众的偏好,以估算包括健康、收入和其他方面在内的七项常用福祉指标的等值收入价值集。其次,我们研究了不同性别、年龄和收入的异质性偏好。第三,我们探讨了偏好的稳定性,因为调查是在大流行病期间进行的,这可能会影响人们对健康和福祉的偏好。我们还区分了自然减员和时间的影响。我们通过互联网面板(N1 = 3362;N2 = 3357),采用离散选择实验法在线收集了两波数据。所有有序属性水平的回归系数都具有预期的符号、显著性和有序性。研究发现,性别和年龄对等值收入的影响高达 10%(均显著),收入对等值收入的影响为 4%(不显著),而时间对等值收入的影响高达 16%(显著)。这项研究有助于根据英国公众的偏好,在可获得相关福祉指标的情况下,以等值收入计算总体福祉。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Eliciting public preferences across health and wellbeing dimensions: An equivalent income value set for SIPHER-7.

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.

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
Health economics
Health economics 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
177
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
The impact of surprise billing laws on emergency services. A welfare analysis of Medicaid and recidivism. The effect of vertical identification card laws on teenage tobacco and alcohol use. How do dental practices respond to changes in scope of practice regulations? Non-classical measurement error in instrumental variables estimation: An application to the medical care costs of obesity.
×
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