Stepping into the shoes of the policy maker: Results of a Participatory Value Evaluation for the Dutch long term COVID-19 strategy

Preferences for the Societal Impacts of a Pandemic when it Transitions into an Endemic: A Discrete Choice Experiment

BACKGROUND

The stage of the pandemic significantly affects people's preferences for (the societal impacts of) COVID-19 policies. No discrete choice experiments were conducted when the COVID-19 pandemic was in a transition phase.

OBJECTIVES

This is the first study to empirically investigate how citizens weigh the key societal impacts of pandemic policies when the COVID-19 pandemic transitions into an endemic.

METHODS

We performed two discrete choice experiments among 2181 Dutch adults that included six attributes: COVID-19 deaths, physical health problems, mental health problems, financial problems, surgery delays and the degree to which individual liberties are restricted. We used latent class choice models to identify heterogeneous preferences for the impacts of COVID-19 measures across different groups of respondents.

RESULTS

A large majority of the participants in this study was willing to accept deaths to avoid that citizens experience physical complaints, mental health issues, financial problems and the postponement of surgeries. The willingness to tolerate COVID-19 deaths to avoid these societal impacts differed substantially between participants. When participants were provided with information about the stringency of COVID-19 measures, they assigned relatively less value to preventing the postponement of non-urgent surgeries for 1-3 months across all classes.

CONCLUSIONS

Having gone through a pandemic, most Dutch citizens clearly prefer pandemic policies that consider citizens' financial situations, physical problems, mental health problems and individual liberties, alongside the effects on excess mortality and pressure on healthcare.

Navigating Public Policy Responses to a Pandemic: The Balancing Act Between Physical Health, Mental Health, and Household Income

OBJECTIVE

During COVID-19, governments imposed restrictions that reduced pandemic-related health risks but likely increased personal and societal mental health risk, partly through reductions in household income. This study aimed to quantify the public's willingness to accept trade-offs between pandemic health risks, household income reduction, and increased risk of mental illness that may result from future pandemic-related policies.

METHODS

A total of 547 adults from an online panel participated in a discrete choice experiment where they were asked to choose between hypothetical future pandemic scenarios. Each scenario was characterized by personal and societal risks of dying from the pandemic, experiencing long-term complications, developing anxiety/depression, and reductions in household income. A latent class regression was used to estimate trade-offs.

RESULTS

Respondents state a willingness to make trade-offs across these attributes if the benefits are large enough. They are willing to accept 0.8% lower household income (0.7-1.0), 2.7% higher personal risk of anxiety/depression (1.8-3.6), or 3.2% higher societal rate of anxiety/depression (1.7-4.7) in exchange for 300 fewer deaths from the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

Results reveal that individuals are willing to accept lower household income and higher rates of mental illness, both personal and societal, if the physical health benefits are large enough. Respondents placed greater emphasis on maintaining personal, as opposed to societal, mental health risk and were most interested in preventing pandemic-related deaths. Governments should consider less restrictive policies when pandemics have high morbidity but low mortality to avoid the prospect of improving physical health while simultaneously reducing net social welfare.

Public Acceptance of Measures to Control Infectious Diseases Under Different Scenarios of Severity and Transmissibility

OBJECTIVES

Public health measures to control future epidemic threats of contagious disease, such as new variants of COVID-19, may be usefully informed by evidence about how acceptable they are likely to be, and the circumstances that condition this acceptance. This study considers how the acceptability of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) might depend on scenarios about the severity and transmissibility of the disease.

METHODS

A telephone survey was conducted among a representative cross-sectional sample of the Spanish adult population. Each respondent was randomly assigned to 1 of 4 possible hypothetical scenarios about the severity and transmissibility of the disease. Participants' responses about the acceptability of 11 NPI under this scenario were analyzed using multivariate regression and latent class cluster analysis.

RESULTS

A high risk of severe disease increases the acceptability of mask wearing, social distancing outdoors, lockdown, and isolation of infected cases, close contacts, and the vulnerable. A scenario in which the disease is highly transmissible would increase the acceptability of NPI that restrict movement and isolation. Most respondents would broadly accept most NPI in situations when either the severity or transmissibility was high.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that people are more willing to accept NPIs such as mask wearing, social distancing outdoors, lockdown, and isolation in severe disease scenarios. A highly transmissible disease scenario increases the acceptability of NPIs that isolate. A majority would broadly accept NPIs to counter public health emergencies, whereas 3% to 9% of the population would always be strongly against.

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

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.

Public preferences for the allocation of societal resources over different healthcare purposes

OBJECTIVE

Increasing healthcare expenditures require governments to make difficult prioritization decisions. Considering public preferences can help raise citizens' support. Previous research has predominantly elicited preferences for the allocation of public resources towards specific treatments or patient groups and principles for resource allocation. This study contributes by examining public preferences for budget allocation over various healthcare purposes in the Netherlands.

METHODS

We conducted a Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) choice experiment in which 1408 respondents were asked to allocate a hypothetical budget over eight healthcare purposes: general practice and other easily accessible healthcare, hospital care, elderly care, disability care, mental healthcare, preventive care by encouragement, preventive care by discouragement, and new and better medicines. A default expenditure was set for each healthcare purpose, based on current expenditures. Respondents could adjust these default expenditures using sliders and were presented with the implications of their adjustments on health and well-being outcomes, the economy, and the healthcare premium. As a constraint, the maximum increase in the mandatory healthcare premium for adult citizens was €600 per year. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics and a Latent Class Cluster Analysis (LCCA).

RESULTS

On average, respondents preferred to increase total expenditures on all healthcare purposes, but especially on elderly care, new and better medicines, and mental healthcare. Three preference clusters were identified. The largest cluster preferred modest increases in expenditures, the second a much higher increase of expenditures, and the smallest favouring a substantial reduction of the healthcare premium by decreasing the expenditure on all healthcare purposes. The analyses also demonstrated substantial preference heterogeneity between clusters for budget allocation over different healthcare purposes.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this choice experiment show that most citizens in the Netherlands support increasing healthcare expenditures. However, substantial heterogeneity was identified in preferences for healthcare purposes to prioritize. Considering these preferences may increase public support for prioritization decisions.

Public Preferences for Introducing a COVID-19 Certificate: A Discrete Choice Experiment in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

Here we investigate public preferences for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) certificates in the Netherlands, and whether these preferences differ between subgroups in the population.

METHODS

A survey including a discrete choice experiment was administered to 1500 members of the adult population of the Netherlands. Each participant was asked to choose between hypothetical COVID-19 certificates that differed in seven attributes: the starting date, and whether the certificate allowed gathering with multiple people, shopping without appointment, visiting bars and restaurants, visiting cinemas and theatres, attending events, and practising indoor sports. Latent class models (LCMs) were used to determine the attribute relative importance and predicted acceptance rate of hypothetical certificates.

RESULTS

Three classes of preference patterns were identified in the LCM. One class a priori opposed a certificate (only two attributes influencing preferences), another class was relatively neutral and included all attributes in their decision making, and the final class was positive towards a certificate. Respondents aged > 65 years and those who plan to get vaccinated were more likely to belong to the latter two classes. Being allowed to shop without appointment and to visit bars and restaurants was most important to all respondents, increasing predicted acceptance rate by 12 percentage points.

CONCLUSIONS

Preferences for introduction of a COVID-19 certificate are mixed. A certificate that allows for shopping without appointment and visiting bars and restaurants is likely to increase acceptance. The support of younger citizens and those who plan to get vaccinated seems most sensitive to the specific freedoms granted by a COVID-19 certificate.