Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Are life-extending treatments for terminal illnesses a special case? Exploring choices and societal viewpoints

Bibliographic Data

ID4594542
AuthorsNeil Mchugh (0000-0002-2567-1527, Glasgow Caledonian University, corresponding author), Job Van Exel (0000-0002-4178-1777, Erasmus University Rotterdam), Hugh Mason (0000-0002-9303-2794, Glasgow Caledonian University), Helen Mason (0000-0002-7834-0123), Jon Godwin (0000-0002-2953-3455, Glasgow Caledonian University), Marissa Collins (0000-0002-0896-6673, Glasgow Caledonian University), Cam Donaldson (0000-0003-4670-5340, Glasgow Caledonian University), Rachel Baker (0000-0003-2700-2682)
Year2018
Volume198
Pages61-69
Publication date2018-02-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueSocial Science & Medicine (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0277-9536 • E-ISSN: 1873-5347
PublisherElsevier BV (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.019
PMID29276987
OpenAlexW2774519747
LanguageEN
Citations received7
References cited19

Criteria used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to assess life-extending, end-of-life (EoL) treatments imply that health gains from such treatments are valued more than other health gains. Despite claims that the policy is supported by societal values, evidence from preference elicitation studies is mixed and in-depth research has shown there are different societal viewpoints. Few studies elicit preferences for policies directly or combine different approaches to understand preferences. Survey questions were designed to investigate support for NICE EoL guidance at national and regional levels. These 'Decision Rule' and 'Treatment Choice' questions were administered to an online sample of 1496 UK respondents in May 2014. The same respondents answered questions designed to elicit their agreement with three viewpoints (previously identified and described) in relation to provision of EoL treatments for terminally ill patients. We report the findings of these choice questions and examine how they relate to each other and respondents' viewpoints. The Decision Rule questions described three policies: DA - a standard 'value for money' test, applied to all health technologies; DB - giving special consideration to all treatments for terminal illnesses; and DC - giving special consideration to specific categories of treatments for terminal illnesses e.g. life extension (as in NICE EoL guidance) or those that improve quality-of-life (QoL). Three Treatment Choices were presented: TA - improving QoL for patients with a non-terminal illness; TB - extending life for EoL patients; and TC - improving QoL at the EoL. DC received most support (45%) with most respondents giving special consideration to EoL only when treatments improved QoL. The most commonly preferred treatment choices were TA (51%) and TC (43%). Overall, this study challenges claims about public support for NICE's EoL guidance and the focus on life extension at EoL and substantiates existing evidence of plurality in societal values

Economics · End-of-life care · Excellence · Nice · Palliative care · Political science · Preference · Quality of life (healthcare · Viewpoints · Computer Science · Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life · Medicine · Nursing · Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues · Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare · Psychology

  • The ethical canary

    Open Access•Victoria Charlton, Michael J DiStefano•Journal of Medical Ethics•2024

  • Public preferences in healthcare resource allocation

    Open Access•Eun-Young Bae, Min Kyoung Lim et al.•Health Policy•2023

  • Who should be given priority for public funding

    Open Access•Eun-Young Bae, Min Kyoung Lim et al.•Health Policy•2020

  • Translating Q methodology results into survey questions for large-scale use

    Open Access•Neil Mchugh, Job Van Exel et al.•International Journal of Social…•2026

  • Disentangling public preferences for health gains at end-of-life

    Open Access•Len D Hansen, Lise Desireé Hansen et al.•Social Science & Medicine•2019

  • Exploring the relative value of end of life Qalys

    Open Access•Neil Mchugh, José Luis Pinto-Prades et al.•Social Science & Medicine•2020

  • The relative value of carer and patient quality of life

    Open Access•Hareth Al-Janabi, Eve Wittenberg et al.•Social Science & Medicine•2022

  • Doing Q Methodological Research

    Simon Watts, Paul Stenner•Doing Q Methodological Research•2012

  • Incompletely Theorized Agreements

    Cass R Sunstein•Harvard Law Review•1995

  • From representing views to representativeness of views

    Open Access•Hugh Mason, Helen Mason et al.•Social Science & Medicine•2016

  • Public views on principles for health care priority setting

    Open Access•Job Van Exel, R Baker et al.•Social Science & Medicine•2014

  • Valuing Qalys at the end of life

    Open Access•José Luis Pinto-Prades, Jose-Luis Pinto-Prades et al.•Social Science & Medicine•2014

  • Valuing health at the end of life

    Open Access•Koonal K Shah, Koonal Shah et al.•Social Science & Medicine•2015

Unique citing works7
Citations per year1
Citation span2019 - 2026 (8)
Citation velocitycurrent
Highly citedNo
Citation typesNeutral: 7

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae