Open AccessViewpoints among experts and the public in the Netherlands on including a lifestyle criterion in the healthcare priority setting
Author(s) -
Dieteren Charlotte M.,
ReckersDroog Vivian T.,
Schrama Sara,
Boer Dynothra,
Exel Job
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
health expectations
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.314
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1369-7625
pISSN - 1369-6513
DOI - 10.1111/hex.13385
Subject(s) - viewpoints , reimbursement , health care , ranking (information retrieval) , public health , government (linguistics) , set (abstract data type) , psychology , medicine , nursing , computer science , political science , artificial intelligence , art , linguistics , philosophy , law , visual arts , programming language
Abstract 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.