Reducing preference reversals: The role of preference imprecision and nontransparent methods.

Preferences elicited with matching and choice usually diverge (as characterised by preference reversals), violating a basic rationality requirement, namely, procedure invariance. We report the results of an experiment that shows that preference reversals between matching (Standard Gamble in our case) and choice are reduced when the matching task is conducted using nontransparent methods. Our results suggest that techniques based on nontransparent methods are less influenced by biases (i.e., compatibility effects) than transparent methods. We also observe that imprecision of preferences influences the degree of preference reversals. The preference reversal phenomenon is less strong in subjects with more precise preferences.

Inverse probability weighted estimation of social tariffs: an illustration using the SF-6D value sets.

This paper presents a novel approach to model health state valuations using inverse probability weighting techniques. Our approach makes no assumption on the distribution of health state values, accommodates covariates in a flexible way, eschews parametric assumptions on the relationship between the outcome and the covariates, allows for an undetermined amount of heterogeneity in the estimates and it formally tests and corrects for sample selection biases. The proposed model is semi-parametrically estimated and it is illustrated with health state valuation data collected for Spain using the SF-6D descriptive system. Estimation results indicate that the standard regression model underestimates the utility loss that the Spanish general population assigns to departures from full health, particularly so for severe departures.

[How should health and healthcare priorities be set and evaluated? Prioritization methods and regional disparities. 2008 SESPAS Report]. / Cómo se deben establecer y evaluar las prioridades en salud y servicios de salud? Métodos de priorización y disparidades regionales. Informe SESPAS 2008.

The conflict between scarce resources and unlimited needs is perhaps more prominent in the healthcare sector than in any other areas. Thus, setting priorities in health care emerges as an unavoidable task. The laudable aim of adopting any health technology that improves the population's health is impossible when confronted by budgetary constraints. Therefore, the outstanding health problems of a society and the most efficient health technologies in terms of their cost-effectiveness must be identified and patients must be prioritized, bearing in mind aspects of equity and efficiency. The present article reviews the issue of setting health care priorities by examining the experiences that have been put into practice in Spain and abroad. The problem is analyzed at three levels: the "macro" level (strategic planning, identification of higher priority areas and the selection of health care interventions); the "meso" level (incorporation of cost-effectiveness analyses into clinical practice guidelines), and the "micro" level (how to design priority systems for patients on waiting lists based on clinical and social criteria). In all these levels, there is substantial heterogeneity between Spanish regional health services, the steps that need to be taken and the ground that needs to be covered. Thus, we suggest that the first steps that some regional health services have made, together with international initiatives, could serve as a reference for the definitive incorporation of new approaches in priority setting in the Spanish health system as a whole.

[How should patients' utilities be incorporated into clinical decisions? 2008 SESPAS Report]. / Cómo incorporar las utilidades de los pacientes a las decisiones clínicas?. Informe SESPAS 2008.

There are many clinical situations in which there is no "right" decision from a technical point of view. An example of this is elective surgery, in which patients' preferences are critical. One way to integrate patients' preferences within clinical practice is the application of decision analysis. According to this approach, preferences (utilities) are assessed and are then combined with physicians' knowledge. This combination of evidence and utilities leads to the so-called shared decision-making (SDM) model. The overview provided in the present article indicates that: a) The SDM model, if systematically applied, could improve treatment effectiveness and patients well being; b) clinical practice, nevertheless, faces barriers in the form of time and resource constraints, limiting the application of such a model; c) discrepancies between patients' and doctors' preferences could be narrowed if patients' utilities were included in clinical practice guidelines; d) the application of this kind of analysis seems to be scarce in Spain. Moreover, information provided to patients is probably insufficient; and e) patient decision aids, even though their use is rapidly growing, are subject to certain problems.