Public perspectives on the trade-off between concentrating and dispersing health care benefits
- 1The University of Sheffield
Abstract
BackgroundConventional cost-effectiveness analysis assumes societal indifference to the distribution of health gains across potential patients, yet evidence suggests public preferences vary between concentrating and dispersing benefits, depending on the size of health gain. The handful of Person Trade-Off (PTO) studies that explored this did not examine the cognitive mechanisms and rationales underlying the PTO tasks.
ObjectivesTo qualitatively investigate how individuals conceptualise and justify trade-off decisions within a PTO task designed to elicit distributional preferences regarding healthcare benefits.
MethodsFollowing a pilot phase (n=10), online cognitive debrief interviews (n=10) were conducted with UK adults using a think-aloud protocol and concurrent verbal probing. Participants completed an interactive, web-based PTO task that presented choices between concentrating larger health gains among fewer recipients or dispersing smaller gains across a larger population. Data were analysed using codebook thematic analysis.
ResultsSix primary themes emerged across two categories: decision-making processes and decision drivers. Participants displayed varying degrees of moral discomfort, utilizing cognitive mechanisms ranging from strict mathematical logic (QALY maximisation) to emotion-driven heuristics. Key decision drivers included patient age, quality of survival, societal productivity, and strong death aversion. Participants frequently rejected pure QALY maximisation and held strong egalitarian preferences to give every patient a chance to receive treatment.
ConclusionPublic perspectives on benefit distribution are highly heterogeneous and shaped by complex normative values rather than pure health maximisation. Understanding these qualitative rationales is essential for isolating genuine distributional preferences from cognitive shortcuts, aiding health technology assessment bodies in evaluating equity weights.
Related
- Balancing urban green space benefits and vector-borne disease risk under climate change: Critical decision-making for 21st century public health
- The public health utility of whole genome sequencing: Insights from a tuberculosis outbreak in Australia and perspectives of public health professionals
- Burkholderia pseudomallei and Melioidosis in Mainland Southeast Asia: A Regional Synthesis of Ecological, Epidemiological, and Public Health Perspectives
- Perceived severity and benefits show a preliminary conditional association with kidney-protective behaviors in type 2 diabetes with early kidney function decline: an exploratory health belief model analysis
- Assessment of the health and economic benefits of PM2.5-O3 composite pollution in Henan Province, China, 2020–2024
BibTeX
@misc{trigg2026public,
title = {{Public perspectives on the trade-off between concentrating and dispersing health care benefits}},
author = {L. A. Trigg and N. Schmeising-Barnes and C. Dix and C. Angus and A. Tsuchiya},
howpublished = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.64898/2026.09.11.26362820},
url = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.11.26362820v1},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Public perspectives on the trade-off between concentrating and dispersing health care benefits
AU - L. A. Trigg
AU - N. Schmeising-Barnes
AU - C. Dix
AU - C. Angus
AU - A. Tsuchiya
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/11
PB - medRxiv
DO - 10.64898/2026.09.11.26362820
UR - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.11.26362820v1
AB - BackgroundConventional cost-effectiveness analysis assumes societal indifference to the distribution of health gains across potential patients, yet evidence suggests public preferences vary between concentrating and dispersing benefits, depending on the size of health gain. The handful of Person Trade-Off (PTO) studies that explored this did not examine the cognitive mechanisms and rationales underlying the PTO tasks. ObjectivesTo qualitatively investigate how individuals conceptualise and justify trade-off decisions within a PTO task designed to elicit distributional preferences regarding healthcare benefits. MethodsFollowing a pilot phase (n=10), online cognitive debrief interviews (n=10) were conducted with UK adults using a think-aloud protocol and concurrent verbal probing. Participants completed an interactive, web-based PTO task that presented choices between concentrating larger health gains among fewer recipients or dispersing smaller gains across a larger population. Data were analysed using codebook thematic analysis. ResultsSix primary themes emerged across two categories: decision-making processes and decision drivers. Participants displayed varying degrees of moral discomfort, utilizing cognitive mechanisms ranging from strict mathematical logic (QALY maximisation) to emotion-driven heuristics. Key decision drivers included patient age, quality of survival, societal productivity, and strong death aversion. Participants frequently rejected pure QALY maximisation and held strong egalitarian preferences to give every patient a chance to receive treatment. ConclusionPublic perspectives on benefit distribution are highly heterogeneous and shaped by complex normative values rather than pure health maximisation. Understanding these qualitative rationales is essential for isolating genuine distributional preferences from cognitive shortcuts, aiding health technology assessment bodies in evaluating equity weights.
ER -