How averse are the UK general public to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups? A systematic review

Abstract

There is growing interest in the use of "distributionally-sensitive" forms of economic evaluation that capture both the impact of an intervention upon average population health and the distribution of that health amongst the population. This review aims to inform the conduct of distributionally sensitive evaluations in the UK by answering three questions: (1) How averse are the UK public towards inequalities in lifetime health between socioeconomic groups? (2) Does this aversion differ depending upon the type of health under consideration? (3) Are the UK public as averse to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups as they are to inequalities in health between neutrally framed groups? EMBASE, MEDLINE, EconLit, and SSCI were searched for stated preference studies relevant to these questions in October 2017. Of the 2155 potentially relevant papers identified, 15 met the predefined hierarchical eligibility criteria. Seven elicited aversion to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups, and eight elicited aversion between neutrally labelled groups. We find general, although not universal, evidence for aversion to inequalities in lifetime health between socioeconomic groups, albeit with significant variation in the strength of that preference across studies. Second, limited evidence regarding the impact of the type of health upon aversion. Third, some evidence that the UK public are more averse to inequalities in lifetime health when those inequalities are presented in the context of socioeconomic inequality than when presented in isolation.

Evaluation of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE): An Updated Review

“…NICE’s commitment to addressing inequalities is illustrated by the fact that it considered adding impact on inequalities as a modifier to future health technology appraisals [ 4 ]. This is based on equality legislation [ 37 ] and evidence suggesting that the UK population prioritises seeking a fair distribution of health across society and is willing to trade-off less health overall if the health is generated in disadvantaged groups, particularly for socioeconomic disadvantage [ 38 ]. However, further work is needed to explore which sources of inequality to include, whether direct and indirect effects would be considered, and how and in which circumstances this could be implemented in health technology evaluations.…”

Eliciting public values on health inequalities: missing evidence for policy windows?

“…No studies have elicited public values for non-health policies and their associated (non-)health outcomes. Stated preference research exists on the public's aversion to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups (McNamara et al, 2020) and there are valuation studies of public health interventions such as water fluoridation and salt reduction (Kristiansen et al, 2006;Shackley and Dixon, 2000). There is also a large stated preference literature on nonhealth policies with non-health outcomes, for example, in environmental and transport sectors (Bahamonde-Birke et al, 2015;Carson and Hanemann, 2005) and there are public attitude/opinion surveys on redistributive non-health policies (for example, Reid et al (2019)).…”

AI in Cardiac Imaging: A UK-Based Perspective on Addressing the Ethical, Social, and Political Challenges

“…A systematic review found significant aversion amongst the UK public to health inequalities, particularly when such inequalities are presented in the context of socioeconomic differences (43). Thus, any suggestion that the use of AI in medicine may exacerbate existing health inequalities, for example by automating existing bias and unfairness at speed and scale, is likely to decrease trust in and acceptability of these tools.…”