Suppr超能文献

公众对健康不平等的反感是否因群体标签和健康收益类型而异?一项选择实验。

Does the UK-public's aversion to inequalities in health differ by group-labelling and health-gain type? A choice-experiment.

机构信息

School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, UK.

School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, UK; Department of Economics, University of Sheffield, UK.

出版信息

Soc Sci Med. 2021 Jan;269:113573. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113573. Epub 2020 Dec 4.

Abstract

Public health policy has two primary aims: promoting population health and reducing health inequalities. When these aims conflict, policy-makers must determine the relative importance to place on each in decision-making. We conducted a computer-based, face-to-face, choice-experiment to explore how the UK-public think government should act in these situations; and to explore how "inequality-aversion" may differ depending on the groups between which a health inequality exists and type of health an intervention provides. We tested three hypotheses: (1) the UK-public are more averse to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups than they are to inequalities in health between neutrally labelled groups; (2) this difference is, at least in part, driven by the role non-health information plays in determining aversion to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups; and (3) the UK-public are more willing to prioritise groups with lower lifetime health over groups with higher lifetime health if an intervention improves life-expectancy than if it improves quality-of-life. Eighty people participated in Sheffield and Hull in May/June 2019. Each participant completed three Person-Trade-Off exercises between interventions that would improve population health and reduce health inequalities, or improve population health by a larger amount but increase health inequalities. Participants were randomised to exercises involving scenarios with socioeconomic groups or neutrally-labelled groups, and each answered questions about three health-benefit types: increased life-expectancy; pain-relief; and mobility-improvement. Following the exercises, participants provided rationales for their selections. Respondents were (1) more averse to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups than neutrally labelled groups. Participant rationales suggest (2) this divergence is partly motivated by factors other than health: for example, financial inequality between socioeconomic groups. The sample was also (3) more willing to prioritise neutrally labelled groups with lower lifetime health if an intervention improves life-expectancy rather than if it improves quality-of-life.

摘要

公共卫生政策有两个主要目标

促进人口健康和减少健康不平等。当这些目标发生冲突时,政策制定者必须确定在决策中相对重视哪一个。我们进行了一项基于计算机的面对面选择实验,以探讨英国公众认为政府在这些情况下应该如何行动;并探讨在干预措施提供的健康不平等存在于不同群体之间以及健康类型不同的情况下,“不平等厌恶”可能会有何不同。我们检验了三个假设:(1)英国公众对社会经济群体之间的健康不平等比对中性标签群体之间的健康不平等更为反感;(2)这种差异至少部分是由非健康信息在确定对社会经济群体之间健康不平等的反感中所起的作用驱动的;(3)如果干预措施提高预期寿命而不是提高生活质量,英国公众更愿意优先考虑预期寿命较低的群体而不是预期寿命较高的群体。2019 年 5 月至 6 月,80 人在谢菲尔德和赫尔参加了实验。每位参与者在改善人口健康和减少健康不平等的干预措施与改善人口健康但增加健康不平等的干预措施之间完成了三项个人交易选择练习。参与者被随机分配到涉及社会经济群体或中性标签群体的情景的练习中,每个练习都回答了关于三种健康效益类型的问题:预期寿命增加;疼痛缓解;和移动性改善。在练习之后,参与者提供了他们选择的理由。受访者(1)对社会经济群体之间的健康不平等比对中性标签群体更为反感。参与者的理由表明(2)这种分歧部分是由健康以外的因素驱动的:例如,社会经济群体之间的财务不平等。样本(3)也更愿意优先考虑预期寿命较低的中性标签群体,如果干预措施提高预期寿命而不是提高生活质量。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验