Premium
Is “end of life” a special case? Connecting Q with survey methods to measure societal support for views on the value of life‐extending treatments
Author(s) -
Mason Helen,
Collins Marissa,
McHugh Neil,
Godwin Jon,
Van Exel Job,
Donaldson Cam,
Baker Rachel
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
health economics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.55
H-Index - 109
eISSN - 1099-1050
pISSN - 1057-9230
DOI - 10.1002/hec.3640
Subject(s) - viewpoints , voting , value (mathematics) , preference , perspective (graphical) , quality of life (healthcare) , value of life , population , life satisfaction , actuarial science , psychology , management science , social psychology , sociology , computer science , statistics , economics , mathematics , political science , demography , law , microeconomics , artificial intelligence , art , politics , visual arts , psychotherapist
Preference elicitation studies reporting societal views on the relative value of end‐of‐life treatments have produced equivocal results. This paper presents an alternative method, combining Q methodology and survey techniques (Q2S) to determine the distribution of 3 viewpoints on the relative value of end‐of‐life treatments identified in a previous, published, phase of this work. These were Viewpoint 1, “A population perspective: value for money, no special cases”; Viewpoint 2, “Life is precious: valuing life‐extension and patient choice”; and Viewpoint 3, “Valuing wider benefits and opportunity cost: the quality of life and death.” A Q2S survey of 4,902 respondents across the United Kingdom measured agreement with these viewpoints; 37% most agreed with Viewpoint 1, 49% with Viewpoint 2, and 9% with Viewpoint 3. Regression analysis showed associations of viewpoints with gender, level of education, religion, voting preferences, and satisfaction with the NHS. The Q2S approach provides a promising means to investigate how in‐depth views and opinions are represented in the wider population. As demonstrated in this study, there is often more than 1 viewpoint on a topic and methods that seek to estimate that averages may not provide the best guidance for societal decision‐making.