Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

A meta-analysis demonstrates no significant differences between patient and population preferences.

Maria G T Dolders1, Maurice P A Zeegers, Wim Groot

  • 1Faculty of Health Science, Department of Health Organisation, Policy and Economics (HOPE), P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands. M.Dolders@umc.nl

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
|June 13, 2006
PubMed
Summary

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Entrepreneurship programs and their underlying pedagogy in secondary education in the Netherlands.

Entrepreneurship education·2026
Same author

Catastrophic health care expenditure among older people with non-communicable diseases in 11 European Union Member States.

PloS one·2026
Same author

Quality as part of universal health coverage in Bhutan: a narrative synthesis.

The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia·2026
Same author

Barriers to Healthcare Access for Children With Congenital Heart Disease in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review Using the SHEL Framework.

Sage open pediatrics·2026
Same author

Increasing the working hours of nurses and teachers: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment.

PloS one·2026
Same author

Private health insurance in Gulf Cooperation Council countries: A scoping review.

Health policy OPEN·2026

Patient and population health state preferences showed no significant differences in two meta-analyses. This suggests both patient and population preferences are valuable for resource allocation decisions.

Area of Science:

  • Health Economics
  • Decision Science
  • Patient-Reported Outcomes

Background:

  • Directly elicited patient and population health state evaluations (preferences) are crucial for resource allocation.
  • Understanding potential differences between these preferences is essential for accurate health policy.
  • Previous research has yielded mixed findings regarding patient versus population preferences.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To quantify and summarize mean differences between patient and population health state preferences.
  • To identify factors that may explain observed differences in preferences.
  • To compare preferences for actual versus hypothetical health states and hypothetical versus hypothetical health states.

Main Methods:

  • Two meta-analyses of observational studies were conducted.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Studies compared directly elicited patient and population preferences for health states.
  • Health state classifications included actual/hypothetical and hypothetical/hypothetical scenarios.

    • Main Results:

    • Thirty-three articles and 78 independent preference estimates were analyzed.
    • No significant difference was found between patients' actual and population's hypothetical health state preferences (SMD = -0.01).
    • No significant difference was found between patient and population preferences for hypothetical health states (SMD = -0.00).

    Conclusions:

    • Meta-analyses revealed no significant differences between patient and population health state preferences.
    • Both patient and population preferences can be considered reliable for allocating scarce healthcare resources.
    • Further research should explore factors influencing heterogeneity in preference estimates.