Viewpoints among experts and the public in the Netherlands on including a lifestyle criterion in the healthcare priority setting
Bibliographic Data
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
Health care · Political science · Public health · Reimbursement · Viewpoints · Computer Science · Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics · Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life · Medicine · Nursing · Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare · Psychology · Artificial Intelligence
Doing Q Methodological Research
Qmethod
Closing the gap in a generation
Priority setting and personal health responsibility
How does participating in a deliberative citizens panel on healthcare priority setting influence the views of participants
Viewpoints among experts and the public in the Netherlands on including a lifestyle criterion in the healthcare priority setting
Self‐responsibility, rationing and treatment decision making – managing moral narratives alongside fiscal reality in the obesity surgery clinic
Waiting times for elective treatments according to insurance status
Priority setting in health care
Impact of five tobacco endgame strategies on future smoking prevalence, population health and health system costs
From representing views to representativeness of views
Public views on principles for health care priority setting
Responsibility for Health and Blaming Victims
Views of older people in the Netherlands on wellbeing
The responsibility principle. Contradictions of priority-setting in Swedish healthcare
| Citations per year | 0.5 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2022 - 2024 (3) |
| Highly cited | No |