Harnessing the potential to quantify public preferences for healthcare priorities through citizens' juries

Risk-Adapted Breast Screening for Women at Low Predicted Risk of Breast Cancer: An Online Discrete Choice Experiment

BACKGROUND

A risk-stratified breast screening program could offer low-risk women less screening than is currently offered by the National Health Service. The acceptability of this approach may be enhanced if it corresponds to UK women's screening preferences and values.

OBJECTIVES

To elicit and quantify preferences for low-risk screening options.

METHODS

Women aged 40 to 70 y with no history of breast cancer took part in an online discrete choice experiment. We generated 32 hypothetical low-risk screening programs defined by 5 attributes (start age, end age, screening interval, risk of dying from breast cancer, and risk of overdiagnosis), the levels of which were systematically varied between the programs. Respondents were presented with 8 choice sets and asked to choose between 2 screening alternatives or no screening. Preference data were analyzed using conditional logit regression models. The relative importance of attributes and the mean predicted probability of choosing each program were estimated.

RESULTS

Participants (N = 502) preferred all screening programs over no screening. An older starting age of screening, younger end age of screening, longer intervals between screening, and increased risk of dying had a negative impact on support for screening programs (P < 0.01). Although the risk of overdiagnosis was of low relative importance, a decreased risk of this harm had a small positive impact on screening choices. The mean predicted probabilities that risk-adapted screening programs would be supported relative to current guidelines were low (range, 0.18 to 0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

A deintensified screening pathway for women at low risk of breast cancer, especially one that recommends a later screening start age, would run counter to women's breast screening preferences. Further research is needed to enhance the acceptability of offering less screening to those at low risk of breast cancer.

HIGHLIGHTS

Risk-based breast screening may involve the deintensification of screening for women at low risk of breast cancer.Low-risk screening pathways run counter to women's screening preferences and values.Longer screening intervals may be preferable to a later start age.Work is needed to enhance the acceptability of a low-risk screening pathway.

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.

Moving beyond the Court of Public Opinion: A Citizens' Jury Exploring the Public's Values around Funding Decisions for Ultra-Orphan Drugs

Health system decision-makers need to understand the value of new technology to make "value for money" decisions. Typically, narrow definitions of value are used. This paper reports on a Canadian Citizens' Jury which was convened to elicit those aspects of value that are important to the public. The criteria used by the public to determine value included those related to the patient, those directly related to caregivers and those directly created for society. Their choices were not binary (e.g., cost vs. health gained), but rather involved multiple factors (e.g., with respect to patient factors: disease severity, health gained with the drug, existence of alternatives, life expectancy, patient age and affordability). Overall, Jurors prioritized funding treatments for ultra-rare disease populations when the treatment offered significant improvements in health and quality of life, and when the pre-treatment health state was considered extremely poor. The prevalence of the disease by itself was not a factor in the choices. Some of the findings differ from previous work, which use survey methods. In our Citizens' Jury, Jurors were able to become more familiar with the question at hand and were exposed to a broad and balanced collection of viewpoints before and throughout engaging in the exercises. This deliberative approach allows for a more nuanced approach to understanding value.

Quantifying public preferences for healthcare priorities in Taiwan through an integrated citizens jury and discrete choice experiment

Priority setting is a critical process for national healthcare systems that need to allocate limited resources across unlimited healthcare demands. In recent decades, health policymakers have identified the need to combine technical dimensions of priority setting with political dimensions relating to community values. A range of methods for engaging the public in priority setting has been developed, yet there is no consensus around the most effective methodology. A 2014 paper proposed the integration of two methods currently used for soliciting public preferences around health care services: i) an individual survey instrument, Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs) and ii) Citizen Juries (CJs), a group-based model that incorporates education and deliberative dialogue. This pilot study is among the first to empirically test this integrated method to assess its value across two domains: does the CJ process alter participant preferences and are the consensus values of the CJ captured by the individualistic DCE? The two-part, mixed methods study was administered in Taipei, Taiwan in August of 2016. Twenty-seven participants completed a DCE as a baseline pre-test, ranking a set of attributes in terms of importance for future resource allocation under Taiwan's National Health Insurance System. Twenty of the participants next took part in the integrated CJ-DCE method, which consisted of education and facilitated dialogue through a CJ, followed by retaking the DCE survey. Participant preferences changed after undergoing the CJ process and these new, group-based preferences were reflected in the second DCE, meaning participants did not revert to their original individualistic preferences. The results of this study demonstrate that the integrated CJ-DCE method adds value in allowing an ethically communitarian set of values to be developed and captured via an individualistic methodology. Further testing is needed to investigate the reliability of our findings and how it may be implemented to maximize public acceptance.

From sharing voices to making decisions: The case for centring community ownership in evaluation of health programme planning and management

BACKGROUND

Community participation in health programme planning has gained traction in public health in recent decades. When an idea enters the mainstream, it becomes vulnerable to overuse and dilution, and public health professionals claiming "community participation" may intentionally or unintentionally prevent more meaningful participatory action. The principle of community-centred planning is seldom integrated into programme evaluation. We have previously argued that, to prevent ambiguity and abuse, a stronger and more explicit idea of community ownership is useful. Un-like "participation", "ownership" leaves little room for dilution.

METHOD

This perspective piece explores a framework to support evaluating community ownership in planning, by emphasising decision-making power in health planning and management as a necessary element for evaluation alongside other outcomes. After defining the concept of community ownership, we identify and discuss challenges and research gaps related to implementing community ownership in health programme planning, management, and evaluation. Such issues include considering which communities have claims to programme ownership, alternative approaches to representation and participation that support ownership, gathering community values and preferences, and incorporating them into ongoing programme planning, management and evaluation. We consider methodological issues likely to arise when transitioning from gathering community voices - which is valuable but incomplete work - towards community decision making power in planning and evaluation.

RESULTS

We use cases from recent policy and research in Chile as examples to consider through the lens of this framework. Finally, we discuss some current constraints in implementing community ownership in healthcare planning and evaluation.

CONCLUSION

We encourage exploring how to practice evaluation in ways that will further our ability to be helpful professional supporters of community self-determination in finding their paths to health.

A virtual deliberative public engagement study on heritable genome editing among South Africans: Study protocol

This article outlines the protocol for a prospective study for virtual deliberative public engagement on heritable genome editing in humans. The study intends to create a platform for a diverse group of 25–30 South Africans to engage with a facilitator and each other on 15 policy questions regarding heritable genome editing, with a focus on: a) the prevention of heritable genetic conditions; b) editing for immunity; and c) editing for enhancement. The aim is to understand the views on these issues so as to inform further research and policy, and to analyse the process and effect of deliberation on opinion. Participants will be expected to study the provided resource materials and pass the entrance exam—aligning with the protocols of the Harvard Personal Genome Project. In this way, the commitment, openness and basic knowledge of the candidates will be tested to ascertain whether they are suitable participants for the deliberative engagement.

Investigating public values in health care priority - Chileans´ preference for national health care

BACKGROUND

This study aims to assess preferences and values for priority setting in healthcare in Chile through an original and innovative survey method. Based on the answers from a previous survey that look into the barriers the Chilean population face, this study considers the preferences of the communities overcoming those barriers. As a result six programs were identified: (1) new infrastructure, (2) better healthcare coverage, (3) increasing physicians/specialists, (4) new informatics systems, (5) new awareness healthcare programs, and (6) improving availability of drugs.

METHODS

We applied an innovative survey method developed for this study to sample subjects to prioritize these programs by their opinion and by allocating resources. The survey also asked people's preferences for a distributive justice principle for healthcare to guide priority setting of services in Chile. The survey was conducted with a sample of 1142 individuals.

RESULTS

More than half of the interviewees (56.4%) indicated a single program as their first priority, while 20.1% selected two of them as their first priority. To increase the number of doctors/specialists and improve patient-doctor communication was the program that obtained the highest priority. The second and third priorities correspond to improving and investing in infrastructure and expanding the coverage of healthcare insurances. Additionally, the results showed that equal access for equal healthcare is the principle selected by the majority to guide distributive justice for the Chilean health system.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows how a large population sample can participate in major decision making of national health policies, including making a choice of a distributive justice principle. Despite the complexity of the questions asked, this study demonstrated that with an innovative method and adequate guidance, average population is capable of engaging in expressing their preferences and values. Results of this study provide policy-makers useful community generated information for prioritizing policies to improve healthcare access.

Creating sustainable health care systems

PURPOSE

In order to create sustainable health systems, many countries are introducing ways to prioritise health services underpinned by a process of health technology assessment. While this approach requires technical judgements of clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness, these are embedded in a wider set of social (societal) value judgements, including fairness, responsiveness to need, non-discrimination and obligations of accountability and transparency. Implementing controversial decisions faces legal, political and public challenge. To help generate acceptance for the need for health prioritisation and the resulting decisions, the purpose of this paper is to develop a novel way of encouraging key stakeholders, especially patients and the public, to become involved in the prioritisation process.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

Through a multidisciplinary collaboration involving a series of international workshops, ethical and political theory (including accountability for reasonableness) have been applied to develop a practical way forward through the creation of a values framework. The authors have tested this framework in England and in New Zealand using a mixed-methods approach.

FINDINGS

A social values framework that consists of content and process values has been developed and converted into an online decision-making audit tool.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

The authors have developed an easy to use method to help stakeholders (including the public) to understand the need for prioritisation of health services and to encourage their involvement. It provides a pragmatic way of harmonising different perspectives aimed at maximising health experience.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

All health care systems are facing increasing demands within finite resources. Although many countries are introducing ways to prioritise health services, the decisions often face legal, political, commercial and ethical challenge. The research will help health systems to respond to these challenges.

SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS

This study helps in increasing public involvement in complex health challenges.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

No other groups have used this combination of approaches to address this issue.

Experience-based utility and own health state valuation for a health state classification system: why and how to do it

In the estimation of population value sets for health state classification systems such as the EuroQOL five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D), there is increasing interest in asking respondents to value their own health state, sometimes referred to as "experience-based utility values" or, more correctly, own rather than hypothetical health states. Own health state values differ to hypothetical health state values, and this may be attributable to many reasons. This paper critically examines whose values matter; why there is a difference between own and hypothetical values; how to measure own health state values; and why to use own health state values. Finally, the paper examines other ways that own health state values can be taken into account, such as including the use of informed general population preferences that may better take into account experience-based values.

The importance of population differences: Influence of individual characteristics on the Australian public's preferences for emergency care

A better understanding of the public's preferences and what factors influence them is required if they are to be used to drive decision-making in health. This is particularly the case for service areas undergoing continual reform such as emergency and primary care. Accordingly, this study sought to determine if attitudes, socio-demographic characteristics and healthcare experiences influence the public's intentions to access care and their preferences for hypothetical emergency care alternatives. A discrete choice experiment was used to elicit the preferences of Australian adults (n=1529). Mixed logit regression analyses revealed the influence of a range of individual characteristics on preferences and service uptake choices across three different presenting scenarios. Age was associated with service uptake choices in all contexts, whilst the impact of other sociodemographics, health experience and attitudinal factors varied by context. The improvements in explanatory power observed from including these factors in the models highlight the need to further clarify their influence with larger populations and other presenting contexts, and to identify other determinants of preference heterogeneity. The results suggest social marketing programs undertaken as part of demand management efforts need to be better targeted if decision-makers are seeking to increase community acceptance of emerging service models and alternatives. Other implications for health policy, service planning and research, including for workforce planning and the possible introduction of a system of co-payments are discussed.

What factors determine the choice of public engagement undertaken by health technology assessment decision-making organizations?

Purpose Public engagement in health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly considered crucial for good decision making. Determining the "right" type of engagement activity is key in achieving the appropriate consideration of public values. Little is known about the factors that determine how HTA organizations (HTAOs) decide on their method of public engagement, and there are a number of possible factors that might shape these decisions. The purpose of this paper is to understand the potential drivers of public engagement from an organizational perspective. Design/methodology/approach The published HTA literature is reviewed alongside existing frameworks of public engagement in order to elucidate key factors influencing the choice of public engagement process undertaken by HTAOs. A conceptual framework is then developed to illustrate the factors identified from the literature that appear to influence public engagement choice. Findings Determining the type of public engagement undertaken in HTA is based on multiple factors, some of which are not always explicitly acknowledged. These factors included the: perceived complexity of the policy-making issue, perceived impact of the decision, transparency and opportunities for public involvement in governance, as well as time and resource constraints. The influences of these factors vary depending on the context, indicating that a one size fits all approach to public engagement may not be effective. Originality/value Awareness of the various factors that might influence the type of public engagement undertaken would enable decision makers to reflect on their choices and be more accountable and transparent about their choice of engagement process in eliciting public values and preferences in a HTAO.

Introduction: priority setting, equitable access and public involvement in health care

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to introduce the special issue on improving equitable access to health care through increased public and patient involvement (PPI) in prioritization decisions by discussing the conceptualization, scope and rationales of PPI in priority setting that inform the special issue. Design/methodology/approach - The paper employs a mixed-methods approach in that it provides a literature review and a conceptual discussion of the common themes emerging in the field of PPI and health priority setting. Findings - The special issue focuses on public participation that is collective in character, in the sense that the participation relates to a social, not personal, decision and is relevant to whole groups of people and not single individuals. It is aimed at influencing a decision on public policy or legal rules. The rationales for public participation can be found in democratic theory, especially as they relate to the social and political values of legitimacy and representation. Originality/value - The paper builds on previous definitions of public participation by underlining its collective character. In doing so, it develops the work by Parry, Moyser and Day by arguing that, in light of the empirical evidence presented in this issue, public participatory activities such as protests and demonstrations should no longer be labelled unconventional, but should instead be labelled as "contestatory participation". This is to better reflect a situation in which these modes of participation have become more conventional in many parts of the world.

The association between misperceptions around weight status and quality of life in adults in Australia

Background

Limited evidence supports a possible association between a person’s perception of their weight status and their quality of life (QoL). This study evaluates whether misperception around weight status is associated with QoL and the impact of gender on this association.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey of Australian adults (n = 1,905 analysed) collected self-reported height and weight (used to estimate BMI), gender and QoL (described using the AQoL-8D). Participants reported whether they perceived their weight status to be ‘underweight’, ‘healthy weight’, ‘overweight’ or ‘obese’. Misperception around weight status was categorised based on perceived weight status and self-reported BMI. Ordinary least squares regression was used to test associations between self-reported overall, physical and psychosocial QoL, misperception of weight status, and gender, across different BMI categories, after controlling for income, education, relationship status and health conditions.

Results

Compared to accurate perception, underestimation of weight status was associated with higher overall QoL for obese males and females and for overweight males. Overestimation of weight status was associated with higher overall QoL for underweight females and lower overall QoL for healthy weight males and females. The same pattern was seen for psychosocial QoL. Physical QoL was less sensitive to misperception than psychosocial QoL.

Conclusions

Self-reported misperception around weight status is associated with overall, psychosocial and to a lesser extent physical QoL in Australian adults, although its role depends on BMI category and gender. Generally misperception in the direction of “healthy weight” is associated with higher QoL and overestimation of weight status by those who are of healthy weight is associated with lower QoL. Findings should be confirmed in datasets that contain measured as opposed to self-report height and weight.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12955-017-0627-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Citizens' preferences on healthcare expenditure allocation: evidence from Greece

BACKGROUND OF CONTEXT

Priority setting and resource allocation across various healthcare functions are critical issues in health policy and strategic decision making. As health resources are limited while there are so many health challenges to resolve, consumers and payers have to make difficult decisions about expenditure allocation.

OBJECTIVE

Our research focus on the (dis)agreement between citizens' preferences and actual public health expenditure across broad healthcare functions, on whether this (dis)agreement is persistent, on whether various demographic factors amplify this (dis)agreement and to derive useful implications for public health policies.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Using survey data of 3029 citizens in Greece for the year 2012 and employing logit estimation techniques, we analysed the effect of demographic and other factors in shaping citizens' (dis)agreement with public health expenditure allocation.

RESULTS

Our results demonstrate the important role of income, family members and residence in shaping citizens' preferences regarding health expenditure priorities in almost all healthcare functions, while other demographic factors such as job, age, gender and marital status do partly associate and play a significant role.

CONCLUSIONS

Government should encourage the citizens' participation in the decision-making process in order to eliminate the unveiled and significant disagreement between citizens' preferences and actual public health expenditure across all healthcare functions.

Developing a conceptual model for the application of patient and public involvement in the healthcare system in Iran

INTRODUCTION

Patient and public involvement is engaging patients, providers, community representatives, and the public in healthcare planning and decision-making. The purpose of this study was to develop a model for the application of patient and public involvement in decision making in the Iranian healthcare system.

METHODS

A mixed qualitative-quantitative approach was used to develop a conceptual model. Thirty three key informants were purposely recruited in the qualitative stage, and 420 people (patients and their companions) were included in a protocol study that was implemented in five steps: 1) Identifying antecedents, consequences, and variables associated with the patient and the publics' involvement in healthcare decision making through a comprehensive literature review; 2) Determining the main variables in the context of Iran's health system using conceptual framework analysis; 3) Prioritizing and weighting variables by Shannon entropy; 4) designing and validating a tool for patient and public involvement in healthcare decision making; and 5) Providing a conceptual model of patient and the public involvement in planning and developing healthcare using structural equation modeling. We used various software programs, including SPSS (17), Max QDA (10), EXCEL, and LISREL. Content analysis, Shannon entropy, and descriptive and analytic statistics were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

In this study, seven antecedents variable, five dimensions of involvement, and six consequences were identified. These variables were used to design a valid tool. A logical model was derived that explained the logical relationships between antecedent and consequent variables and the dimensions of patient and public involvement as well.

CONCLUSION

Given the specific context of the political, social, and innovative environments in Iran, it was necessary to design a model that would be compatible with these features. It can improve the quality of care and promote the patient and the public satisfaction with healthcare and legitimate the representative of people they served for. This model can provide a practical guide for managers and policy makers to involve people in making the decisions that influence their lives.

Engaging the public in healthcare decision-making: results from a Citizens' Jury on emergency care services

BACKGROUND

Policies addressing ED crowding have failed to incorporate the public's perspectives; engaging the public in such policies is needed.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed at determining the public's recommendations related to alternative models of care intended to reduce crowding, optimising access to and provision of emergency care.

METHODS

A Citizens' Jury was convened in Queensland, Australia, to consider priority setting and resource allocation to address ED crowding. Twenty-two jurors were recruited from the electoral roll, who were interested and available to attend the jury from 15 to 17 June 2012. Juror feedback was collected via a survey immediately following the end of the jury.

RESULTS

The jury considered that all patients attending the ED should be assessed with a minority of cases diverted for assistance elsewhere. Jurors strongly supported enabling ambulance staff to treat patients in their homes without transporting them to the ED, and allowing non-medical staff to treat some patients without seeing a doctor. Jurors supported (in principle) patient choice over aspects of their treatment (when, where and type of health professional) with some support for patients paying towards treatment but unanimous opposition for patients paying to be prioritised. Most of the jurors were satisfied with their experience of the Citizens' Jury process, but some jurors perceived the time allocated for deliberations as insufficient.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that the general public may be open to flexible models of emergency care. The jury provided clear recommendations for direct public input to guide health policy to tackle ED crowding.

Prioritizing government funding of adolescent vaccinations: recommendations from young people on a citizens' jury

OBJECTIVE

Adolescents' views, and preferences are often over-looked when public health policies that affect them are designed and implemented. The purpose of this study was to describe young people's views and preferences for determining government funding priorities for adolescent immunization programs.

METHODS

In 2015 we conducted a youth jury in metropolitan Adelaide, South Australia to deliberate on the question "What criteria should we use to decide which vaccines for young people in Australia should receive public funding?" Fifteen youth aged 15-19 years participated in the jury. Jury members were recruited from the general community through a market research company using a stratified sampling technique.

RESULTS

The jury's key priorities for determining publically funded vaccines were: Disease severity - whether the vaccine preventable disease (VPD) was life threatening and impacted on quality of life. Transmissibility - VPDs with high/fast transmission and high prevalence. Demonstration of cost-effectiveness, taking into account purchase price, program administration, economic and societal gain. The jury's recommendations for vaccine funding policy were strongly underpinned by the belief that it was critical to ensure that funding was targeted to not only population groups who would be medically at risk from vaccine preventable diseases, but also to socially and economically disadvantaged population groups. A novel recommendation proposed by the jury was that there should be a process for establishing criteria to remove vaccines from publically funded programs as a complement to the process for adding new vaccines.

CONCLUSIONS

Young people have valuable contributions to make in priority setting for health programs and their views should be incorporated into the framing of health policies that directly affect them.

Eliciting patient preferences, priorities and trade-offs for outcomes following kidney transplantation: a pilot best-worst scaling survey

OBJECTIVES

Eliciting preferences and trade-offs that patients may make to achieve important outcomes, can assist in developing patient-centred research and care. The pilot study aimed to test the feasibility of a case 2 best-worst scaling survey (BWS) to elicit recipient with kidney transplantation preferences after transplantation.

DESIGN

Preferences for graft survival and dying, cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, infection and side effects (gastrointestinal, weight-gain and appearance) were assessed in recipients with transplantation using a BWS (20 scenarios of nine outcomes). Participants chose 'best' and 'worst' outcomes. Responses were analysed using a multinomial logit model. Selected participants were interviewed.

OUTCOMES

Attribute coefficients and survey completion error rates.

RESULTS

81 recipients with transplantation were approached, and 39 (48%), mean age 50.5 years, completed the BWS. 4 (10%) surveys were invalid with major errors and of 35 remaining, 7 of 1400 (0.5%) choices were missing. -23 (59%) took >20 min to complete the survey. 1 was unable to finish, and 1 did not understand the survey. 2 (5%) found it very hard and 14 (35%) moderately hard. Most attribute coefficients were significant (p<0.05) and showed face validity. Graft survival was most important with normalised coefficients from 1 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.11) to 0.06 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.16) for 30 and 1 year duration, respectively. Attribute level coefficients decreased with increasing risk of adverse outcomes. Error rates of 20% and 2% were estimated for dominant attributes '100% risk of dying' and '30 years graft survival', respectively. 7 participants were interviewed regarding counterintuitive selection of '100% risk of dying' as a 'best' outcome. Misunderstanding, not linking dying to graft survival and aversion to dialysis were reasons given.

CONCLUSIONS

Recipients with transplant recipients successfully completed a complex case 2 BWS with attribute coefficients having face validity with respect to duration of graft survival and risk of adverse outcomes. Areas for refinement to reduce complexity in design have been identified.

Prioritising patients for bariatric surgery: building public preferences from a discrete choice experiment into public policy

OBJECTIVES

To derive priority weights for access to bariatric surgery for obese adults, from the perspective of the public.

SETTING

Australian public hospital system.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults (N=1994), reflecting the age and gender distribution of Queensland and South Australia.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

A discrete choice experiment in which respondents indicated which of two individuals with different characteristics should be prioritised for surgery in repeated hypothetical choices. Potential surgery recipients were described by seven key characteristics or attributes: body mass index (BMI), presence of comorbid conditions, age, family history, commitment to lifestyle change, time on the surgical wait list and chance of maintaining weight loss following surgery. A multinomial logit model was used to evaluate preferences and derive priority weights (primary analysis), with a latent class model used to explore respondent characteristics that were associated with variation in preference across the sample (see online supplementary analysis).

RESULTS

A preference was observed to prioritise individuals who demonstrated a strong commitment to maintaining a healthy lifestyle as well as individuals categorised with very severe (BMI≥50 kg/m2) or (to a lesser extent) severe (BMI≥40 kg/m2) obesity, those who already have obesity-related comorbidity, with a family history of obesity, with a greater chance of maintaining weight loss or who had spent a longer time on the wait list. Lifestyle commitment was considered to be more than twice as important as any other criterion. There was little tendency to prioritise according to the age of the recipient. Respondent preferences were dependent on their BMI, previous experience with weight management surgery, current health state and education level.

CONCLUSIONS

This study extends our understanding of the publics' preferences for priority setting to the context of bariatric surgery, and derives priority weights that could be used to assist bodies responsible for commissioning bariatric services.

Public participation: more than a method?: Comment on "Harnessing the potential to quantify public preferences for healthcare priorities through citizens' juries"

While it is important to support the development of methods for public participation, we argue that this should not be at the expense of a broader consideration of the role of public participation. We suggest that a rights based approach provides a framework for developing more meaningful approaches that move beyond public participation as synonymous with consultation to value the contribution of lay knowledge to the governance of health systems and health research.