How does participating in a deliberative citizens panel on healthcare priority setting influence the views of participants?

Causes, Solutions and Health Inequalities: Comparing Perspectives of Professional Stakeholders and Community Participants Experiencing Low Income and Poor Health in London

BACKGROUND

Engaging with the public can influence policy decisions, particularly towards more radical policy change. While established research exists exploring public perceptions on causes of health inequalities, much less exists on how to tackle health inequalities in the UK. Despite an emphasis on 'lived experience', currently no study has focused on how individuals with very poor health conceive of both causes of, and solutions to, health inequalities.

METHODS

Q methodology was used to identify and describe the shared perspectives that exist on causes of, and solutions to, health inequalities experienced in low-income communities. Community participants living with low-incomes and poor health (n = 20) and professional stakeholders (n = 20) from London rank ordered 34 'Causes' and 39 'Solutions' statements onto quasi-normal shaped grids according to their point of view. Factor analysis defined factors for both 'Causes' and 'Solutions'.

RESULTS

Analysis produced three-factor solutions for both the 'Causes' and 'Solutions'. 'Causes' are (i) 'Systemic inequality and poverty', (ii) 'Ignored and marginalised communities', (iii) 'Precariousness, chronic stress and hopelessness'. 'Solutions' are (i) 'Meeting basic needs and providing opportunities to thrive', (ii) 'Empowering individuals to take control', (iii) 'Supporting healthy choices'. No professional stakeholders aligned with 'Ignored and marginalised communities' while at least one community participant or professional stakeholder aligned with all other factors.

CONCLUSION

Results support the view that the public has a relatively sophisticated understanding of causes of health inequalities and help challenge assumptions held by policy actors that lay members of the public do not recognise and understand more upstream ways to respond to health inequalities.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The public contributed to the design of the Q study. Surveys and interviews with community participants informed the development of the statement set and the statement set was also piloted with community participants and finalised based on feedback.

Policy actors' perceptions of public participation to tackle health inequalities in Scotland: a paradox?

BACKGROUND

Health inequalities are persistent and widening with transformative policy change needed. Radically shifting policy to tackle upstream causes of inequalities is likely to require public participation to provide a mandate, evidence and to address questions of co-design, implementation and acceptability. The aim of this paper is to explore perceptions among policy actors on why and how the public should be involved in policymaking for health inequalities.

METHODS

In 2019-2020, we conducted exploratory, in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 21 Scottish policy actors from a range of public sector bodies and agencies and third sector organisations that work in, or across, health and non-health sectors. Data were analysed thematically and used to examine implications for the development of participatory policymaking.

RESULTS

Policy actors viewed public participation in policymaking as intrinsically valuable for democratic reasons, but the main, and more challenging, concern was with how it could affect positive policy change. Participation was seen as instrumental in two overlapping ways: as evidence to improve policies to tackle health inequalities and to achieve public acceptance for implementing more transformative policies. However, our analysis suggests a paradox: whilst policy actors place importance on the instrumental value of public participation, they simultaneously believe the public hold views about health inequalities that would prevent transformative change. Finally, despite broad agreement on the need to improve public participation in policy development, policy actors were uncertain about how to make the necessary changes due to conceptual, methodological and practical challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

Policy actors believe in the importance of public participation in policy to address health inequalities for intrinsic and instrumental reasons. Yet, there is an evident tension between seeing public participation as a route to upstream policies and a belief that public views might be misinformed, individualistic, short-term or self-interested and doubts about how to make public participation meaningful. We lack good insight into what the public think about policy solutions to health inequalities. We propose that research needs to shift from describing the problem to focusing more on potential solutions and outline a potential way forward to undertake effective public participation to tackle health inequalities.

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

BACKGROUND

Public preferences are an important consideration for priority-setting. Critics suggest preferences of the public who are potentially naïve to the issue under consideration may lead to sub-optimal decisions. We assessed the impact of information and deliberation via a Citizens' Jury (CJ) or preference elicitation methods (Discrete Choice Experiment, DCE) on preferences for prioritizing access to bariatric surgery.

METHODS

Preferences for seven prioritization criteria (e.g. obesity level, obesity-related comorbidities) were elicited from three groups who completed a DCE: (i) participants from two CJs (n = 28); (ii) controls who did not participate in the jury (n = 21); (iii) population sample (n = 1,994). Participants in the jury and control groups completed the DCE pre- and post-jury. DCE data were analyzed using multinomial logit models to derive "priority weights" for criteria for access to surgery. The rank order of criteria was compared across groups, time points and CJ recommendations.

RESULTS

The extent to which the criteria were considered important were broadly consistent across groups and were similar to jury recommendations but with variation in the rank order. Preferences of jurors but not controls were more differentiated (that is, criteria were assigned a greater range of priority weights) after than before the jury. Juror preferences pre-jury were similar to that of the public but appeared to change during the course of the jury with greater priority given to a person with comorbidity. Conversely, controls appeared to give a lower priority to those with comorbidity and higher priority to treating very severe obesity after than before the jury.

CONCLUSION

Being informed and undertaking deliberation had little impact on the criteria that were considered to be relevant for prioritizing access to bariatric surgery but may have a small impact on the relative importance of criteria. CJs may clarify underlying rationale but may not provide substantially different prioritization recommendations compared to a DCE.

Moral and Social Values in Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide"

An evidence-informed deliberative process (EDP) is defined as "a practical and stepwise approach for health technology assessment (HTA) bodies to enhance legitimate health benefit package design based on deliberation between stakeholders to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, informed by evidence on these values." In this commentary, I discuss some considerations for EDPs that arise from acknowledging the difference between social and moral values. First, the best practices for implementing EDPs may differ depending on whether the approach is grounded in moral versus social values. Second, the goals of deliberation may differ when focused on moral versus social values. I conclude by offering some considerations for future research to support the use of EDPs in practice, including the need to assess how different approaches to appraisal (eg, more quantitative versus qualitative) impact perceptions of the value of deliberation itself.

Are digital citizen panels an innovative, deliberative approach to cardiovascular research?

Online citizen panels are an innovative way to collect information about populations. They can help explain social determinants of health while involving citizens in research, allowing researchers to help the community, and advance cardiovascular research. This paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of collecting information via online citizen panels and assesses these panels' potential in cardiovascular research. To exemplify such panels' use, we discuss a case study that utilized the Swedish Citizen Panel.

To what extent do citizens support the disinvestment of healthcare interventions? An exploration of the support for four viewpoints on active disinvestment in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Active disinvestment of healthcare interventions (i.e. discontinuing reimbursement by means of a policy decision) has received limited public support in the past. Previous research has identified four viewpoints on active disinvestment among citizens in the Netherlands. However, it remained unclear how strong these viewpoints are supported by society, and by whom. Therefore, the current study aimed to 1) measure the support for these four viewpoints and 2) assess whether support is associated with background characteristics of citizens.

METHOD

In an online survey, a representative sample of adult citizens in the Netherlands (n = 1794) was asked to rate their agreement with short narratives of the four viewpoints on a 7-point Likert scale. The survey also included questions on sociodemographic characteristics, health status, healthcare utilization, and opinions about responsibility and costs in the healthcare context. Logistic regression models were estimated for each viewpoint to assess the association between viewpoint support and these characteristics.

RESULTS

The support for the different viewpoints varied between 46.8% and 57.7% of the sample. Viewpoint support was associated with participants' age, gender, educational level, financial situation, healthcare utilization, opinion on the responsibility of the government for the health of citizens, and opinion on whether the increase in healthcare expenditure and health insurance premiums is considered a problem.

CONCLUSION

Resistance to active disinvestment may partially be explained by the consequences of disinvestment citizens anticipate experiencing themselves. Citizens considering the increase in healthcare expenditure a larger problem were more supportive of disinvestment than those considering it less of a problem.

Viewpoints among experts and the public in the Netherlands on including a lifestyle criterion in the healthcare priority setting

Context

It remains unclear whether there would be societal support for a lifestyle criterion for the healthcare priority setting. This study examines the viewpoints of experts in healthcare and the public regarding support for a lifestyle‐related decision criterion, relative to support for the currently applied criteria, in the healthcare priority setting in the Netherlands.

Methods

We conducted a Q methodology study in samples of experts in healthcare (n = 37) and the public (n = 44). Participants (total sample N = 81) ranked 34 statements that reflected currently applied decision criteria as well as a lifestyle criterion for setting priorities in healthcare. The ranking data were subjected to principal component analysis, followed by oblimin rotation, to identify clusters of participants with similar viewpoints.

Findings

We identified four viewpoints. Participants with Viewpoint 1 believe that treatments that have been proven to be effective should be reimbursed. Those with Viewpoint 2 believe that life is precious and every effort should be made to save a life, even when treatment still results in a very poor state of health. Those with Viewpoint 3 accept government intervention in unhealthy lifestyles and believe that individual responsibility should be taken into account in reimbursement decisions. Participants with Viewpoint 4 attribute importance to the cost‐effectiveness of treatments; however, when priorities have to be set, treatment effects are considered most important. All viewpoints were supported by a mix of public and experts, but Viewpoint 1 was mostly supported by experts and the other viewpoints were mostly supported by members of the public.

Conclusions

This study identified four distinct viewpoints on the healthcare priority setting in the Netherlands, each supported by a mix of experts and members of the public. There seems to be some, but limited, support for a lifestyle criterion—in particular, among members of the public. Experts seem to favour the decision criteria that are currently applied. The diversity in views deserves attention when policymakers want to adhere to societal preferences and increase policy acceptance.

A scoping review of Q-methodology in healthcare research

BACKGROUND

Q-methodology is an approach to studying complex issues of human 'subjectivity'. Although this approach was developed in the early twentieth century, the value of Q-methodology in healthcare was not recognised until relatively recently. The aim of this review was to scope the empirical healthcare literature to examine the extent to which Q-methodology has been utilised in healthcare over time, including how it has been used and for what purposes.

METHODS

A search of three electronic databases (Scopus, EBSCO-CINAHL Complete, Medline) was conducted. No date restriction was applied. A title and abstract review, followed by a full-text review, was conducted by a team of five reviewers. Included articles were English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles that used Q-methodology (both Q-sorting and inverted factor analysis) in healthcare settings. The following data items were extracted into a purpose-designed Excel spreadsheet: study details (e.g., setting, country, year), reasons for using Q-methodology, healthcare topic area, participants (type and number), materials (e.g., ranking anchors and Q-set), methods (e.g., development of the Q-set, analysis), study results, and study implications. Data synthesis was descriptive in nature and involved frequency counting, open coding and the organisation by data items.

RESULTS

Of the 2,302 articles identified by the search, 289 studies were included in this review. We found evidence of increased use of Q-methodology in healthcare, particularly over the last 5 years. However, this research remains diffuse, spread across a large number of journals and topic areas. In a number of studies, we identified limitations in the reporting of methods, such as insufficient information on how authors derived their Q-set, what types of analyses they performed, and the amount of variance explained.

CONCLUSIONS

Although Q-methodology is increasingly being adopted in healthcare research, it still appears to be relatively novel. This review highlight commonalities in how the method has been used, areas of application, and the potential value of the approach. To facilitate reporting of Q-methodological studies, we present a checklist of details that should be included for publication.

Hidden bedside rationing in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional survey among physicians in internal medicine

Background

Healthcare rationing can be defined as withholding beneficial care for cost reasons. One form in particular, hidden bedside rationing, is problematic because it may result in conflicting loyalties for physicians, unfair inequality among patients and illegitimate distribution of resources. Our aim is to establish whether bedside rationing occurs in the Netherlands, whether it qualifies as hidden and what physician characteristics are associated with its practice.

Methods

Cross-sectional online questionnaire on knowledge of -, experience with -, and opinion on rationing among physicians in internal medicine within the Dutch healthcare system. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression was used to explore relations between hidden bedside rationing and physician characteristics.

Results

The survey was distributed among 1139 physicians across 11 hospitals with a response rate of 18% (n = 203). Most participants (n = 129; 64%) had experience prescribing a cheaper course of treatment while a more effective but more expensive alternative was available, suggesting bedside rationing. Subsequently, 32 (24%) participants never disclosed this decision to their patient, qualifying it as hidden. The majority of participants (n = 153; 75%) rarely discussed treatment cost. Employment at an academic hospital was independently associated with more bedside rationing (OR = 17 95%CI 6.1–48). Furthermore, residents were more likely to disclose rationing to their patients than internists (OR = 3.2, 95%CI 2.1–4.7), while salaried physicians were less likely to do so than physicians in private practice (OR = 0.5, 95%CI 0.4–0.8).

Conclusion

Hidden bedside rationing occurs in the Netherlands: patient choice is on occasion limited with costs as rationale and this is not always disclosed. To what extent distribution of healthcare should include bedside rationing in the Netherlands, or any other country, remains up for debate.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06229-2.

Societal views in the Netherlands on active disinvestment of publicly funded healthcare interventions

OBJECTIVES

To obtain public support for the active disinvestment (i.e. policy decision to stop reimbursement) of healthcare interventions, it is important to have insight in what the public thinks about disinvestment and which considerations they find relevant in this context. Currently, evidence on relevant considerations in the disinvestment context is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the societal views in the Netherlands on the active disinvestment of healthcare interventions and obtain insight into the considerations that are relevant for those holding the different views.

METHODS

A Q-methodology study was conducted among a purposively selected sample of citizens (n = 43). Data were collected in June and July 2019. Participants individually ranked a set of 43 statements broadly covering the issues that participants could consider relevant in the disinvestment context, from 'least agree' to 'most agree'. Qualitative feedback on the statement ranking was collected from each participant using a questionnaire. Principal component analysis followed by oblimin rotation was used to identify clusters of participants with similar statement rankings. These clusters/factors were interpreted as distinct viewpoints using the factor arrays and qualitative questionnaire responses of participants.

RESULTS

Four viewpoints were identified. People holding viewpoint I believe that reimbursement of necessary healthcare should be maintained, irrespective of its costs. People holding viewpoint II agree with viewpoint I, although they believe that necessity should be objectively determined. People holding viewpoint III think that unnecessary, ineffective and inefficient healthcare should be disinvested. People holding viewpoint IV, consider it most important that disinvestment decision-making processes are transparent and consistent.

CONCLUSION

Insight in the distinct viewpoints identified in this study contributes to a better understanding of why it has been considered difficult to obtain public support for disinvestment of healthcare interventions, and can help policymakers to change their approach to disinvestment to increase public support.