We need to talk about values: a proposed framework for the articulation of normative reasoning in health technology assessment.

It is acknowledged that health technology assessment (HTA) is an inherently value-based activity that makes use of normative reasoning alongside empirical evidence. But the language used to conceptualise and articulate HTA's normative aspects is demonstrably unnuanced, imprecise, and inconsistently employed, undermining transparency and preventing proper scrutiny of the rationales on which decisions are based. This paper - developed through a cross-disciplinary collaboration of 24 researchers with expertise in healthcare priority-setting - seeks to address this problem by offering a clear definition of key terms and distinguishing between the types of normative commitment invoked during HTA, thus providing a novel conceptual framework for the articulation of reasoning. Through application to a hypothetical case, it is illustrated how this framework can operate as a practical tool through which HTA practitioners and policymakers can enhance the transparency and coherence of their decision-making, while enabling others to hold them more easily to account. The framework is offered as a starting point for further discussion amongst those with a desire to enhance the legitimacy and fairness of HTA by facilitating practical public reasoning, in which decisions are made on behalf of the public, in public view, through a chain of reasoning that withstands ethical scrutiny.

Developing a combined framework for priority setting in integrated health and social care systems.

BACKGROUND: There is an international move towards greater integration of health and social care to cope with the increasing demand on services.. In Scotland, legislation was passed in 2014 to integrate adult health and social care services resulting in the formation of 31 Health and Social Care Partnerships (HSCPs). Greater integration does not eliminate resource scarcity and the requirement to make (resource) allocation decisions to meet the needs of local populations. There are different perspectives on how to facilitate and improve priority setting in health and social care organisations with limited resources, but structured processes at the local level are still not widely implemented. This paper reports on work with new HSCPs in Scotland to develop a combined multi-disciplinary priority setting and resource allocation framework. METHODS: To develop the combined framework, a scoping review of the literature was conducted to determine the key principles and approaches to priority setting from economics, decision-analysis, ethics and law, and attempts to combine such approaches. Co-production of the combined framework involved a multi-disciplinary workshop including local, and national-level stakeholders and academics to discuss and gather their views. RESULTS: The key findings from the literature review and the stakeholder workshop were taken to produce a final combined framework for priority setting and resource allocation. This is underpinned by principles from economics (opportunity cost), decision science (good decisions), ethics (justice) and law (fair procedures). It outlines key stages in the priority setting process, including: framing the question, looking at current use of resources, defining options and criteria, evaluating options and criteria, and reviewing each stage. Each of these has further sub-stages and includes a focus on how the combined framework interacts with the consultation and involvement of patients, public and the wider staff. CONCLUSIONS: The integration agenda for health and social care is an opportunity to develop and implement a combined framework for setting priorities and allocating resources fairly to meet the needs of the population. A key aim of both integration and the combined framework is to facilitate the shifting of resources from acute services to the community.

Policy actors' perceptions of public participation to tackle health inequalities in Scotland: a paradox?

BACKGROUND: Health inequalities are persistent and widening with transformative policy change needed. Radically shifting policy to tackle upstream causes of inequalities is likely to require public participation to provide a mandate, evidence and to address questions of co-design, implementation and acceptability. The aim of this paper is to explore perceptions among policy actors on why and how the public should be involved in policymaking for health inequalities. METHODS: In 2019-2020, we conducted exploratory, in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 21 Scottish policy actors from a range of public sector bodies and agencies and third sector organisations that work in, or across, health and non-health sectors. Data were analysed thematically and used to examine implications for the development of participatory policymaking. RESULTS: Policy actors viewed public participation in policymaking as intrinsically valuable for democratic reasons, but the main, and more challenging, concern was with how it could affect positive policy change. Participation was seen as instrumental in two overlapping ways: as evidence to improve policies to tackle health inequalities and to achieve public acceptance for implementing more transformative policies. However, our analysis suggests a paradox: whilst policy actors place importance on the instrumental value of public participation, they simultaneously believe the public hold views about health inequalities that would prevent transformative change. Finally, despite broad agreement on the need to improve public participation in policy development, policy actors were uncertain about how to make the necessary changes due to conceptual, methodological and practical challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Policy actors believe in the importance of public participation in policy to address health inequalities for intrinsic and instrumental reasons. Yet, there is an evident tension between seeing public participation as a route to upstream policies and a belief that public views might be misinformed, individualistic, short-term or self-interested and doubts about how to make public participation meaningful. We lack good insight into what the public think about policy solutions to health inequalities. We propose that research needs to shift from describing the problem to focusing more on potential solutions and outline a potential way forward to undertake effective public participation to tackle health inequalities.

Nemacol is a small molecule inhibitor of C. elegans vesicular acetylcholine transporter with anthelmintic potential.

Nematode parasites of humans and livestock pose a significant burden to human health, economic development, and food security. Anthelmintic drug resistance is widespread among parasites of livestock and many nematode parasites of humans lack effective treatments. Here, we present a nitrophenyl-piperazine scaffold that induces motor defects rapidly in the model nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. We call this scaffold Nemacol and show that it inhibits the vesicular acetylcholine transporter (VAChT), a target recognized by commercial animal and crop health groups as a viable anthelmintic target. We demonstrate that it is possible to create Nemacol analogs that maintain potent in vivo activity whilst lowering their affinity to the mammalian VAChT 10-fold. We also show that Nemacol enhances the ability of the anthelmintic Ivermectin to paralyze C. elegans and the ruminant nematode parasite Haemonchus contortus. Hence, Nemacol represents a promising new anthelmintic scaffold that acts through a validated anthelmintic target.

Common health assets protocol: a mixed-methods, realist evaluation and economic appraisal of how community-led organisations (CLOs) impact on the health and well-being of people living in deprived areas.

INTRODUCTION: This research investigates how community-led organisations' (CLOs') use of assets-based approaches improves health and well-being, and how that might be different in different contexts. Assets-based approaches involve 'doing with' rather than 'doing to' and bring people in communities together to achieve positive change using their own knowledge, skills and experience. Some studies have shown that such approaches can have a positive effect on health and well-being. However, research is limited, and we know little about which approaches lead to which outcomes and how different contexts might affect success. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using a realist approach, we will work with 15 CLOs based in disadvantaged communities in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. A realist synthesis of review papers, and a policy analysis in different contexts, precedes qualitative interviews and workshops with stakeholders, to find out how CLOs' programmes work and identify existing data. We will explore participants' experiences through: a Q methodology study; participatory photography workshops; qualitative interviews and measure outcomes using a longitudinal survey, with 225 CLO participants, to assess impact for people who connect with the CLOs. An economic analysis will estimate costs and benefits to participants, for different contexts and mechanisms. A 'Lived Experience Panel' of people connected with our CLOs as participants or volunteers, will ensure the appropriateness of the research, interpretation and reporting of findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This project, research tools and consent processes have been approved by the Glasgow Caledonian University School of Health and Life Sciences Ethics Committee, and affirmed by Ethics Committees at Bournemouth University, Queen's University Belfast and the University of East London. Common Health Assets does not involve any National Health Service sites, staff or patients.Findings will be presented through social media, project website, blogs, policy briefings, journal articles, conferences and visually in short digital stories, and photographic exhibitions.

Protocol for estimating the willingness-to-pay-based value for a quality-adjusted life year to aid health technology assessment in India: a cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: To ensure that the evidence generated by health technology assessment (HTA) is translated to policy, it is important to generate a threshold value against which the outcomes of HTA studies can be compared. In this context, the present study delineates the methods that will be deployed to estimate such a value for India. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The proposed study will deploy a multistage sampling approach considering economic and health status for selection of states, followed by selection of districts based on Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) and identification of primary sampling units (PSUs) using the 30-cluster approach. Further, households within PSU will be identified using systematic random sampling and block randomisation based on gender will be done to select respondent from the household. A total of 5410 respondents will be interviewed for the study. The interview schedule will comprise of three sections including background questionnaire to elicit socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, followed by assessment of health gains, and willingness to pay (WTP). To assess the health gains and corresponding WTP, the respondent will be presented with hypothetical health states. Using time trade off method, the respondent will indicate the amount of time he/she is willing to give up at the end of life to avoid morbidities in the hypothetical health condition. Further, respondents will be interviewed about their WTP for treatment of respective hypothetical conditions using contingent valuation technique. These estimates of health gains and corresponding WTP will then be combined to ascertain the value of WTP per quality-adjusted life year. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The ethical approval has been obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) of Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India. The study outcomes will be made available for general use and interpretation of HTA studies commissioned by India's central HTA Agency.

Public values and plurality in health priority setting: What to do when people disagree and why we should care about reasons as well as choices.

CONTEXT: 'What does 'The Public' think?' is a question often posed by researchers and policy makers, and public values are regularly invoked to justify policy decisions. Over time there has been a participatory turn in the social and health sciences, including health technology assessment and priority setting in health, towards citizen participation such that public policies reflect public values. It is one thing to agree that public values are important, however, and another to agree on how public values should be elicited, deliberated upon and integrated into decision-making. Surveys of public values rarely deliver unanimity, and preference heterogeneity, or plurality, is to be expected. METHODS: This paper examines the role of public values in health policy and how to elicit, analyse, and present values, in the face of plurality. We delineate the strengths and weaknesses of aggregative and deliberative methods before setting out a new empirical framework, drawing on Sunstein's Incompletely Theorised Agreements, based on three levels: principles, policies and patients. The framework is illustrated using a recognised policy dilemma - the provision of high cost, limited-effect medicines intended to extend life for people with terminal illnesses. FINDINGS: Application of the multi-level framework to public values permits transparent consideration of plurality, including analysis of coherence and consensus, in a way that offers routes to policy recommendations that are based on public values and justified in those terms. CONCLUSIONS: Using the new framework and eliciting quantitative and qualitative data across levels of abstraction has the potential to inform policy recommendations grounded in public values, where values are plural. This is not to suggest that one solution will magically emerge, but rather that choices between policies can be explicitly justified in relation to the properties of public values, and a much clearer understanding of (in)consistencies and areas of consensus.

Microcredit as a public health initiative? Exploring mechanisms and pathways to health and wellbeing.

The widening health gap between the best and worst-off in the UK requires innovative solutions that act upon the social, economic and environmental causes of ill-health. Initiatives such as microcredit have been conceptualised as having the potential to act on the social determinants of health. However, pathways that lead to this impact have yet to be empirically explored. People living on low incomes, who are financially-excluded, require access to credit to cope with everyday financial needs. While research shows the connections between debt and health, this link is often focused on over-indebtedness and negative health outcomes. In this paper, we investigate the impact of responsibly-delivered credit on the health and wellbeing of borrowers. In 2016-17, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with fourteen borrowers from two microcredit providers offering personal and business microloans, operating in Glasgow, United Kingdom. Findings are presented, using social determinants of health as an analytic lens, and illustrated in a conceptual model explaining the loan mechanisms and pathways connecting microcredit to health and wellbeing. Microcredit, and the mechanisms through which it is delivered, were perceived by participants as positively impacting on their health and wellbeing. Access to flexible, responsibly-delivered, microloans enabled participants to plan and feel secure when faced with (un)expected financial events, reducing the associated stress, sustaining social relationships and empowering borrowers to take greater control over their lives. For some, receiving microcredit was stressful, as it is still a debt that needs to be repaid. Such stress can also be exacerbated by particular aspects of the lending model; for example, group lending. Our results contribute to growing evidence on the impact of financial inclusion approaches on health and wellbeing, highlighting the potential role of microcredit as a public health initiative and the need to support 'alternative' economic spaces in the UK to serve the financially-excluded.

Exploring the relative value of end of life QALYs: Are the comparators important?

In the UK, life extending, end-of-life (EoL) treatments are an exception to standard cost-per-quality-adjusted life year (QALY) thresholds. This implies that greater value is placed on gaining these QALYs, than QALYs gained by the majority of other patient groups treated for anything else in the health system, even for other EoL contexts (such as quality of life (QoL) improvements alone). This paper reports a Person Trade-Off (PTO) study to test whether studies that find societal support for prioritising EoL life extensions can be explained by the severity, in terms of prospective QALYs loss, of the non-terminal comparator scenarios. Eight health scenarios were designed depicting i) QoL improvements for non-EoL temporary (T-QoL) and chronic (C-QoL) health problems and ii) QoL improvements and life extensions (LEs) for EoL health problems. Preferences were elicited from a quota sample of 901 Scottish respondents in 2016 using PTO techniques via Computer Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI). Our results indicate that there is little evidence to suggest that the severity of non-EoL comparator scenarios influence preferences for EoL treatments. Respondents do not appear to have a preference for EoL over non-EoL health gains; instead there is some indication that non-EoL health gains are preferred, particularly when compared to EoL-LE health gains. Comparing between QoL and life extending EoL scenarios, our results suggest QoL improvements are preferred to life extensions. Overall, results challenge current UK EoL policy which gives additional weight to EoL health gains, particularly EoL life extensions in the case of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

Filling a void? The role of social enterprise in addressing social isolation and loneliness in rural communities.

Social isolation and loneliness has been classed as a major public health concern due to its negative physical and mental health implications, and living in a remote or rural area is a prominent contributing risk factor. Community-led social enterprise models are recognised in government policy as a potential preventative measure for social isolation and loneliness, yet there is a lack of understanding of their application in rural contexts. The objectives of this paper are to investigate the role of social enterprise in addressing social isolation and loneliness in rural communities, and to explore the pathways in which social enterprise activity may act upon the health and wellbeing of social enterprise beneficiaries. We also discuss the capacity of rural community members to deliver and sustain such services. The study used in-depth interviews over a three-year period with 35 stakeholders from seven social enterprises in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, including board members, staff, volunteers and service users. Findings showed that social enterprises are successfully providing activities that counteract factors contributing to social isolation and feelings of loneliness, leading to wider health and wellbeing benefits for individuals. However, the sustainability and continuity of social enterprises are questionable due to the burden on smaller populations, limited expertise and knowledge of running social enterprises, and effects on the personal lives of social enterprise volunteers and staff. This study supports suggestions that social enterprises can be generators of health and wellbeing through their varied remit of activities that impact on the social determinants of health. However, it also shows that relying on social enterprise as a particular solution to social isolation and loneliness is precarious due to complexities associated with rurality. Therefore, rural policy and practice must move away from a 'one size fits all' approach to tackling social isolation and loneliness, recognise the need for local level tailored interventions and, through harnessing the potential or rural social enterprises, enable flexible service provision that correlates with rural context.

Who knows best? A Q methodology study to explore perspectives of professional stakeholders and community participants on health in low-income communities.

BACKGROUND: Health inequalities in the UK have proved to be stubborn, and health gaps between best and worst-off are widening. While there is growing understanding of how the main causes of poor health are perceived among different stakeholders, similar insight is lacking regarding what solutions should be prioritised. Furthermore, we do not know the relationship between perceived causes and solutions to health inequalities, whether there is agreement between professional stakeholders and people living in low-income communities or agreement within these groups. METHODS: Q methodology was used to identify and describe the shared perspectives ('subjectivities') that exist on i) why health is worse in low-income communities ('Causes') and ii) the ways that health could be improved in these same communities ('Solutions'). Purposively selected individuals (n = 53) from low-income communities (n = 25) and professional stakeholder groups (n = 28) ranked ordered sets of statements - 34 'Causes' and 39 'Solutions' - onto quasi-normal shaped grids according to their point of view. Factor analysis was used to identify shared points of view. 'Causes' and 'Solutions' were analysed independently, before examining correlations between perspectives on causes and perspectives on solutions. RESULTS: Analysis produced three factor solutions for both the 'Causes' and 'Solutions'. Broadly summarised these accounts for 'Causes' are: i) 'Unfair Society', ii) 'Dependent, workless and lazy', iii) 'Intergenerational hardships' and for 'Solutions': i) 'Empower communities', ii) 'Paternalism', iii) 'Redistribution'. No professionals defined (i.e. had a significant association with one factor only) the 'Causes' factor 'Dependent, workless and lazy' and the 'Solutions' factor 'Paternalism'. No community participants defined the 'Solutions' factor 'Redistribution'. The direction of correlations between the two sets of factor solutions - 'Causes' and 'Solutions' - appear to be intuitive, given the accounts identified. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the plurality of views there was broad agreement across accounts about issues relating to money. This is important as it points a way forward for tackling health inequalities, highlighting areas for policy and future research to focus on.

Is "end of life" a special case? Connecting Q with survey methods to measure societal support for views on the value of life-extending treatments.

Preference elicitation studies reporting societal views on the relative value of end-of-life treatments have produced equivocal results. This paper presents an alternative method, combining Q methodology and survey techniques (Q2S) to determine the distribution of 3 viewpoints on the relative value of end-of-life treatments identified in a previous, published, phase of this work. These were Viewpoint 1, "A population perspective: value for money, no special cases"; Viewpoint 2, "Life is precious: valuing life-extension and patient choice"; and Viewpoint 3, "Valuing wider benefits and opportunity cost: the quality of life and death." A Q2S survey of 4,902 respondents across the United Kingdom measured agreement with these viewpoints; 37% most agreed with Viewpoint 1, 49% with Viewpoint 2, and 9% with Viewpoint 3. Regression analysis showed associations of viewpoints with gender, level of education, religion, voting preferences, and satisfaction with the NHS. The Q2S approach provides a promising means to investigate how in-depth views and opinions are represented in the wider population. As demonstrated in this study, there is often more than 1 viewpoint on a topic and methods that seek to estimate that averages may not provide the best guidance for societal decision-making.

Marketing Authorization Procedures for Advanced Cancer Drugs: Exploring the Views of Patients, Oncologists, Healthcare Decision Makers, and Citizens in France.

BACKGROUND: The past decades have seen advances in cancer treatments in terms of toxicity and side effects but progress in the treatment of advanced cancer has been modest. New drugs have emerged improving progression free survival but with little impact on overall survival, raising questions about the criteria on which to base decisions to grant marketing authorizations and about the authorization procedure itself. For decisions to be fair, transparent and accountable, it is necessary to consider the views of those with relevant expertise and experience. METHODS: We conducted a Q-study to explore the views of a range of stakeholders in France, involving: 54 patients (18 months after diagnosis); 50 members of the general population; 27 oncologists; 19 healthcare decision makers; and 2 individuals from the pharmaceutical industry. RESULTS: Three viewpoints emerged, focussing on different dimensions entitled: 1) 'Quality of life (QoL), opportunity cost and participative democracy'; 2)'QoL and patient-centeredness'; and 3) 'Length of life'. Respondents from all groups were associated with each viewpoint, except for healthcare decision makers, who were only associated with the first one. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight plurality in the views of stakeholders, emphasize the need for transparency in decision making processes, and illustrate the importance of a re-evaluation of treatments for all 3 viewpoints. In the context of advanced cancer, our results suggest that QoL should be more prominent amongst authorization criteria, as it is a concern for 2 of the 3 viewpoints.

Priority to End of Life Treatments? Views of the Public in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: Recent debates in the Netherlands on health care priority setting have focused on the relative value of gains generated by life-extending medicines for people with a terminal illness, mostly new cancer drugs. These treatments are generally expensive, provide relatively small health gains, and therefore usually do not meet common cost per QALY thresholds. Nevertheless, these drugs may be provided under the assumption that there is public support for making a special case for treatments for people with a terminal illness. This study investigated the views of the public in the Netherlands on a range of equity and efficiency considerations relevant to priority setting and examines whether there is public support for making such a special case. METHODS: Using Q methodology, three viewpoints on important principles for priority setting were identified. Data were collected through ranking exercises conducted by 46 members of the general public in the Netherlands, including 11 respondents with personal experience with cancer. RESULTS: Viewpoint 1 emphasized that people have equal rights to healthcare and opposed priority setting on any ground. Viewpoint 2 emphasized that the care for terminal patients should at all times respect the patients' quality of life, which sometimes means refraining from invasive treatments. Viewpoint 3 had a strong focus on effective and efficient care and had no moral objection against priority setting under certain circumstances. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we found little public support for the assumption that health gains in terminally ill patients are more valuable than those in other patients. This implies that the assumption that society is prepared to pay more for health gains in people who have only a short period of lifetime left does not correspond with societal preferences in the Netherlands.

From representing views to representativeness of views: Illustrating a new (Q2S) approach in the context of health care priority setting in nine European countries.

Governments across Europe are required to make decisions about how best to allocate scarce health care resources. There are legitimate arguments for eliciting societal vales in relation to health care resource allocation given the roles of the general public as payers and potential patients. However, relatively little is known about the views of the general public on general principles which could guide these decisions. In this paper we present five societal viewpoints on principles for health care resources allocation and develop a new approach, Q2S, designed to investigate the extent to which these views are held across a range of European countries. An online survey was developed, based on a previously completed study Q methodology, and delivered between November 2009 and February 2010 across nine countries to 33,515 respondents. The largest proportion of our respondents (44%), were found to most associate themselves with an egalitarian perspective. Differences in views were more strongly associated with countries than with socio-demographic characteristics. These results provide information which could be useful for decision makers in understanding the pluralistic context in which they are making health care resource allocation decisions and how different groups in society may respond to such decisions.

Extending life for people with a terminal illness: a moral right and an expensive death? Exploring societal perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Many publicly-funded health systems apply cost-benefit frameworks in response to the moral dilemma of how best to allocate scarce healthcare resources. However, implementation of recommendations based on costs and benefit calculations and subsequent challenges have led to 'special cases' with certain types of health benefits considered more valuable than others. Recent debate and research has focused on the relative value of life extensions for people with terminal illnesses. This research investigates societal perspectives in relation to this issue, in the UK. METHODS: Q methodology was used to elicit societal perspectives from a purposively selected sample of data-rich respondents. Participants ranked 49 statements of opinion (developed for this study), onto a grid, according to level of agreement. These 'Q sorts' were followed by brief interviews. Factor analysis was used to identify shared points of view (patterns of similarity between individuals' Q sorts). RESULTS: Analysis produced a three factor solution. These rich, shared accounts can be broadly summarised as: i) 'A population perspective - value for money, no special cases', ii) 'Life is precious - valuing life-extension and patient choice', iii) 'Valuing wider benefits and opportunity cost - the quality of life and death'. From the factor descriptions it is clear that the main philosophical positions that have long dominated debates on the just allocation of resources have a basis in public opinion. CONCLUSIONS: The existence of certain moral positions in the views of society does not ethically imply, and pragmatically cannot mean, that all are translated into policy. Our findings highlight normative tensions and the importance of critically engaging with these normative issues (in addition to the current focus on a procedural justice approach to health policy). Future research should focus on i) the extent to which these perspectives are supported in society, ii) how respondents' perspectives relate to specific resource allocation questions, and iii) the characteristics of respondents associated with each perspective.

Public views on principles for health care priority setting: findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology.

Resources available to the health care sector are finite and typically insufficient to fulfil all the demands for health care in the population. Decisions must be made about which treatments to provide. Relatively little is known about the views of the general public regarding the principles that should guide such decisions. We present the findings of a Q methodology study designed to elicit the shared views in the general public across ten countries regarding the appropriate principles for prioritising health care resources. In 2010, 294 respondents rank ordered a set of cards and the results of these were subject to by-person factor analysis to identify common patterns in sorting. Five distinct viewpoints were identified, (I) "Egalitarianism, entitlement and equality of access"; (II) "Severity and the magnitude of health gains"; (III) "Fair innings, young people and maximising health benefits"; (IV) "The intrinsic value of life and healthy living"; (V) "Quality of life is more important than simply staying alive". Given the plurality of views on the principles for health care priority setting, no single equity principle can be used to underpin health care priority setting. Hence, the process of decision making becomes more important, in which, arguably, these multiple perspectives in society should be somehow reflected.

Comparing WTP values of different types of QALY gain elicited from the general public.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate thresholds for decisions on the cost-effectiveness of medical interventions remain controversial, especially in 'end-of-life' situations. Evidence of the values placed on different types of health gain by the general public is limited. METHODS: Across nine European countries, 17,657 people were presented with different hypothetical health scenarios each involving a gain of one quality adjusted life year (QALY) and asked about their willingness to pay (WTP) for that gain. The questions included quality of life (QoL) enhancing and life extending health gains, and a scenario where respondents faced imminent, premature death. RESULTS: The mean WTP values for a one-QALY gain composed of QoL improvements were modest (PPP$11,000). When comparing QALY gains obtained in the near future, the valuation of life extension exceeded the valuation of QoL enhancing gains (mean WTP PPP$19,000 for a scenario in which a coma is avoided). The mean WTP values were higher still when respondents faced imminent, premature death (PPP$29,000). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from the largest survey on the value of health gains by the general public indicated a higher value for life extending gains compared with QoL enhancing gains. A further modest premium may be indicated for life extension when facing imminent, premature death.