Damschroder Laura J, Roberts Todd R, Goldstein Christine C, Miklosovic Molly E, Ubel Peter A
VA Health Service Research & Development Center of Excellence, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Popul Health Metr. 2005 Nov 10;3:10. doi: 10.1186/1478-7954-3-10.
Person trade-off (PTO) elicitations yield different values than standard utility measures, such as time trade-off (TTO) elicitations. Some people believe this difference arises because the PTO captures the importance of distributive principles other than maximizing treatment benefits. We conducted a qualitative study to determine whether people mention considerations related to distributive principles other than QALY-maximization more often in PTO elicitations than in TTO elicitations and whether this could account for the empirical differences.
64 members of the general public were randomized to one of three different face-to-face interviews, thinking aloud as they responded to TTO and PTO elicitations. Participants responded to a TTO followed by a PTO elicitation within contexts that compared either: 1) two life-saving treatments; 2) two cure treatments; or 3) a life-saving treatment versus a cure treatment.
When people were asked to choose between life-saving treatments, non-maximizing principles were more common with the PTO than the TTO task. Only 5% of participants considered non-maximizing principles as they responded to the TTO elicitation compared to 68% of participants who did so when responding to the PTO elicitation. Non-maximizing principles that emerged included importance of equality of life and a desire to avoid discrimination. However, these principles were less common in the other two contexts. Regardless of context, though, participants were significantly more likely to respond from a societal perspective with the PTO compared to the TTO elicitation.
When lives are at stake, within the context of a PTO elicitation, people are more likely to consider non-maximizing principles, including the importance of equal access to a life-saving treatment, avoiding prejudice or discrimination, and in rare cases giving treatment priority based purely on the position of being worse-off.
与标准效用测量方法(如时间权衡法(TTO))相比,个人权衡法(PTO)得出的价值不同。一些人认为这种差异的出现是因为PTO捕捉到了除最大化治疗效益之外的分配原则的重要性。我们进行了一项定性研究,以确定人们在PTO诱导中是否比在TTO诱导中更频繁地提及除QALY最大化之外与分配原则相关的考虑因素,以及这是否可以解释实证差异。
64名普通公众被随机分配到三种不同的面对面访谈之一,在对TTO和PTO诱导做出回应时边思考边表达。参与者在以下情境中先对TTO做出回应,然后对PTO做出回应:1)两种挽救生命的治疗方法;2)两种治愈性治疗方法;或3)一种挽救生命的治疗方法与一种治愈性治疗方法。
当人们被要求在挽救生命的治疗方法之间进行选择时,非最大化原则在PTO任务中比在TTO任务中更常见。在对TTO诱导做出回应时,只有5%的参与者考虑了非最大化原则,而在对PTO诱导做出回应时,这一比例为68%。出现的非最大化原则包括生命平等的重要性和避免歧视的愿望。然而,这些原则在其他两种情境中不太常见。不过,无论情境如何,与TTO诱导相比,参与者在PTO诱导中从社会角度做出回应的可能性显著更高。
当生命受到威胁时,在PTO诱导的情境下,人们更有可能考虑非最大化原则,包括平等获得挽救生命治疗的重要性、避免偏见或歧视,以及在极少数情况下纯粹基于处境更差的地位给予治疗优先权。