Measuring Public Preferences for Health Outcomes and Expenditures in a Context of Healthcare Resource Re-Allocation

Nicolas Krucien* (Corresponding Author), Nathalie Pelletier-Fleury, Amiram Gafni

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)
6 Downloads (Pure)


The final outcome of any resource allocation decision in healthcare cannot be determined in advance. Thus, decision makers, in deciding which new program to implement (or not), need to accommodate the uncertainty of different potential outcomes (i.e., change in both health and costs) that can occur, the size and nature (i.e., ‘bad’ or ‘good’) of these outcomes, and how they are being valued. Using the decision-making plane, which explicitly incorporates opportunity costs and relaxes the assumptions of perfect divisibility and constant returns to scale of the cost-effectiveness plane, all the potential outcomes of each resource allocation decision can be described.

In this study, we describe the development and testing of an instrument, using a discrete choice experiment methodology, allowing the measurement of public preferences for potential outcomes falling in different quadrants of the decision-making plane.

In a sample of 200 participants providing 4200 observations, we compared four versions of the preference-elicitation instrument using a range of indicators.

We identified one version that was well accepted by the participants and with good measurement properties.

This validated instrument can now be used in a larger representative sample to study the preferences of the public for potential outcomes stemming from re-allocation of healthcare resources.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)407-417
Number of pages11
Issue number3
Early online date30 Nov 2018
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2019

Bibliographical note

Financial support for this study was provided by the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM). The funding agreement ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. The authors (Nicolas KRUCIEN; Nathalie PELLETIER-FLEURY;
Amiram GAFNI) have no conflict of interest to declare.


Dive into the research topics of 'Measuring Public Preferences for Health Outcomes and Expenditures in a Context of Healthcare Resource Re-Allocation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this