Impact of information and deliberation on the consistency of preferences for prioritization in health care – evidence from discrete choice experiments undertaken alongside citizens’ juries
Creators: name: Whitty, Jennifer A.
name: Littlejohns, Peter
name: Ratcliffe, Julie
name: Rixon, Kylie
name: Wilson, Andrew
name: Kendall, Elizabeth
name: Burton, Paul
name: Chalkidou, Kalipso
name: Scuffham, Paul A.
Publisher: name: Taylor & Francis
Year: 2023
Subjects: subject: Medicine
subject: Genetics
subject: FOS: Biological sciences
subject: Science Policy

description: Public preferences are an important consideration for priority-setting. Critics suggest preferences of the public who are potentially naïve to the issue under consideration may lead to sub-optimal decisions. We assessed the impact of information and deliberation <i>via</i> a Citizens’ Jury (CJ) or preference elicitation methods (Discrete Choice Experiment, DCE) on preferences for prioritizing access to bariatric surgery. Preferences for seven prioritization criteria (e.g. obesity level, obesity-related comorbidities) were elicited from three groups who completed a DCE: (i) participants from two CJs (<i>n</i> = 28); (ii) controls who did not participate in the jury (<i>n</i> = 21); (iii) population sample (<i>n</i> = 1,994). Participants in the jury and control groups completed the DCE pre- and post-jury. DCE data were analyzed using multinomial logit models to derive “priority weights” for criteria for access to surgery. The rank order of criteria was compared across groups, time points and CJ recommendations. The extent to which the criteria were considered important were broadly consistent across groups and were similar to jury recommendations but with variation in the rank order. Preferences of jurors but not controls were more differentiated (that is, criteria were assigned a greater range of priority weights) after than before the jury. Juror preferences pre-jury were similar to that of the public but appeared to change during the course of the jury with greater priority given to a person with comorbidity. Conversely, controls appeared to give a lower priority to those with comorbidity and higher priority to treating very severe obesity after than before the jury. Being informed and undertaking deliberation had little impact on the criteria that were considered to be relevant for prioritizing access to bariatric surgery but may have a small impact on the relative importance of criteria. CJs may clarify underlying rationale but may not provide substantially different prioritization recommendations compared to a DCE. Public preferences are an important consideration for priority-setting. However, some people worry that if the public doesn’t know much about the issues, their opinions might not lead to the best decisions. To make these decisions, we used two different methods to get people’s opinions: Deliberative methods and preference elicitation methods. Deliberative methods gather a small group of people and have them discuss an issue in detail, whereas preference elicitation methods seek opinions through surveying a large group of people. In this paper, we assessed the impact of information and deliberation via a deliberative method (Citizens’ Jury, CJ) or a preference elicitation method (Discrete Choice Experiment, DCE) on preferences for prioritising access to bariatric surgery. We used data from two CJs and a DCE focussed on prioritising access to the surgery, to find out if the opinions of those in the CJs changed or stayed the same after they heard information from experts and discussed the topic. The results showed that the important criteria were rather similar across the groups, but the order of importance was a bit different. The people in CJs had more varied opinions after discussing it, while those who didn’t discuss it had less varied opinions. The participants in CJs also prioritized those with other health problems more than they did at the beginning. This study helps us understand how different methods can be used to get the public’s opinions on healthcare decisions.