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

McNamara, Simon; Tsuchiya, Aki; Holmes, John

doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113573

Cited by 15 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…16 of 2004 governing the Attorney General's Office of the Republic of Indonesia, which indicates that the Attorney General has the ability to override situations involving the public interest. 12 However, even though the opportunity principle is not explicitly controlled in the Criminal Procedure Code, as it is in Law Number 16 of 2004, the Criminal Procedure Code gives an opportunity to apply it. Articles on exceptions to the rule are not dealt with in isolation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of the Opportunity Principle on the Attorney General's Office's Deponerring Implementation

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>This study aims to analyze the implications of the principle of opportunity for implementing depowering in the Attorney General's Office. This is normative legal research, with secondary data in primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The results showed that implementing depowering as part of the principle of opportunity was not optimal and practical. The causative factors were. First, the legal material was still ambiguous regarding the definition of public interest as the basis for implementing depowering. Secondly, the understanding of the prosecutor's office on the principle of opportunity was not coherent with the principle of equality before the law by the apparatus. Third, the factor of the legal culture of the community whose trust is still deficient in the implementation of the principle of opportunity by the Prosecutor's Office.</p>

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of the Opportunity Principle on the Attorney General's Office's Deponerring Implementation

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One explanation is that we asked respondents what outcome "should" obtain where Howarth et al (2019) asked what outcome is "acceptable". Another likely explanation lies in the fact that whilst previous work in this area has typically captured perceptions of health across different income or wealth groups (Booske et al 2011;Howarth et al 2019;Hurley et al 2020;Macintyre et al 2005;McNamara et al 2021;Shankardass et al 2012), this is the first report of desires for health inequality relating to occupational social class. Studies of attitudes to poverty and social welfare find that rich and poor categorizations are sensitive to perceptions of deservingness, which can include blaming the poor for poverty (Dorey 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, if the public desires some inequality in health outcomes, then how large ought these inequalities be? There are now many studies examining aversion to health inequality in which respondents choose between pairwise health interventions and scenarios which either improve total health or reduce health inequality (e.g., Hurley et al 2020;McNamara et al 2021;Robson et al 2017). However, these trade-off scenarios may over-estimate preferences for health inequality because participants are placed in dilemma where they must choose either to exacerbate inequality (whilst increasing total health) or reduce inequality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived Health Inequalities: Do the UK and US Public Accurately Estimate Socioeconomic Health Inequality, and Do they Wish to See It Reduced?

Bridger¹,

Hewett²,

Comerford³

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. It is unknown whether the public accurately estimate socioeconomic health inequality and whether they wish to see it reduced or eliminated. Methods. Representative samples of the UK and US indicated the perceived and ideal lifespan of people working in “higher managerial/professional” and “routine” occupations. We present perceived and desired lifespan ratios for each sample and for key socio-demographic variables. Results. The UK public estimated the lifespan of professionals to be 5.9% longer than routine workers (true value of 5.8%), and 67.8% (UK) and 53.7% (US) participants correctly identified that professionals live longer than routine workers. In both populations, the median respondent expressed equal ideal lifespans for routine workers and professional workers. Conclusion. The UK public appear well-appraised on the average lifespan for professionals and routine workers. Across nationalities and most socio-demographic groups, the median respondent was aware of social class inequalities in lifespan and preferred that they be eliminated.

show abstract

“…or "which would you wish to see chosen?" This manipulation was included because both variants have been asked in prior surveys investigating equity/efficiency trade-offs (e.g., compare Cookson et al, 2018;McNamara et al, 2021). The "which would you choose?"…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public preferences to trade-off gains in total health for health equality: Discrepancies between an abstract scenario versus the real-world scenario presented by COVID-19

Comerford

Tufte-Hewett

Bridger

2023

Rationality and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Policymakers must ration healthcare. This necessity became salient during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some policymakers took that opportunity to reduce inequality of health outcomes at the expense of overall health gains. There is a literature that seeks to quantify the optimal trade-off between efficiency and equality in health outcomes: economists employ surveys to quantify the public’s preferred level of equity/efficiency trade-off. An odd result from these studies is that a non-trivial subsample of respondents choose to “level down” i.e., they choose as though an additional year of life delivers negative utility to society if it accrues to the most privileged. In an experiment of US and UK respondents ( n = 495), we compare equity/efficiency trade-offs across an abstract scenario along the lines of that presented in previous surveys versus a COVID-19 scenario, where it is made explicit that healthcare rationing is a real and current necessity occasioned by the pandemic. We find that preference for “levelling down” is reduced in the COVID-19 scenario relative to the abstract scenario. This result implies that, at least in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, previous results have overestimated the public’s willingness to sacrifice overall gains in population health in order to reduce inequality of health outcomes.

show abstract

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

Cited by 15 publications

References 31 publications

The Effects of the Opportunity Principle on the Attorney General's Office's Deponerring Implementation

The Effects of the Opportunity Principle on the Attorney General's Office's Deponerring Implementation

Perceived Health Inequalities: Do the UK and US Public Accurately Estimate Socioeconomic Health Inequality, and Do they Wish to See It Reduced?

Public preferences to trade-off gains in total health for health equality: Discrepancies between an abstract scenario versus the real-world scenario presented by COVID-19

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About