Cargando…
Euthanasia, religiosity and the valuation of health states: results from an Irish EQ5D5L valuation study and their implications for anchor values
BACKGROUND: The Quality Adjusted Life Year influences the allocation of significant amounts of healthcare resources. Despite this surprisingly little research effort has been devoted to analysing how beliefs and attitudes to hastening death influence preferences for health states anchored at “dead”...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6069795/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30064460 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0985-9 |
_version_ | 1783343570928795648 |
---|---|
author | Barry, Luke Hobbins, Anna Kelleher, Daniel Shah, Koonal Devlin, Nancy Goni, Juan Manuel Ramos O’Neill, Ciaran |
author_facet | Barry, Luke Hobbins, Anna Kelleher, Daniel Shah, Koonal Devlin, Nancy Goni, Juan Manuel Ramos O’Neill, Ciaran |
author_sort | Barry, Luke |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The Quality Adjusted Life Year influences the allocation of significant amounts of healthcare resources. Despite this surprisingly little research effort has been devoted to analysing how beliefs and attitudes to hastening death influence preferences for health states anchored at “dead” and “perfect health”. In this paper we examine how, inter alia, adherence to particular religious beliefs (religiosity) influences attitudes to euthanasia and how, inter alia, attitudes to euthanasia influences the willingness to assign worse than dead (WTD) values to health states using data collected as part of the Irish EQ5D5L valuation study. METHODS: A sample of 160 respondents each supplied 10 composite time trade-off valuations and information on religiosity and attitudes to euthanasia as part of a larger national survey. Data were analysed using a recursive bivariate probit model in which attitudes to euthanasia and willingness to assign WTD values were analysed jointly as functions of a range of covariates. RESULTS: Religiosity was a significant determinant of attitudes to euthanasia and attitudes to euthanasia were a significant determinant of the likelihood of assigning WTD values. A significant negative correlation in errors between the two probit models was observed indicative of support for the hypothesis of endogeneity between attitudes to euthanasia and readiness to assign WTD values. CONCLUSION: In Ireland attitudes and beliefs play an important role in understanding health state preferences. Beyond Ireland this may have implications for: the construction of representative samples; understanding the values accorded health states and; the frequency with which value sets must be updated. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12955-018-0985-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6069795 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60697952018-08-03 Euthanasia, religiosity and the valuation of health states: results from an Irish EQ5D5L valuation study and their implications for anchor values Barry, Luke Hobbins, Anna Kelleher, Daniel Shah, Koonal Devlin, Nancy Goni, Juan Manuel Ramos O’Neill, Ciaran Health Qual Life Outcomes Research BACKGROUND: The Quality Adjusted Life Year influences the allocation of significant amounts of healthcare resources. Despite this surprisingly little research effort has been devoted to analysing how beliefs and attitudes to hastening death influence preferences for health states anchored at “dead” and “perfect health”. In this paper we examine how, inter alia, adherence to particular religious beliefs (religiosity) influences attitudes to euthanasia and how, inter alia, attitudes to euthanasia influences the willingness to assign worse than dead (WTD) values to health states using data collected as part of the Irish EQ5D5L valuation study. METHODS: A sample of 160 respondents each supplied 10 composite time trade-off valuations and information on religiosity and attitudes to euthanasia as part of a larger national survey. Data were analysed using a recursive bivariate probit model in which attitudes to euthanasia and willingness to assign WTD values were analysed jointly as functions of a range of covariates. RESULTS: Religiosity was a significant determinant of attitudes to euthanasia and attitudes to euthanasia were a significant determinant of the likelihood of assigning WTD values. A significant negative correlation in errors between the two probit models was observed indicative of support for the hypothesis of endogeneity between attitudes to euthanasia and readiness to assign WTD values. CONCLUSION: In Ireland attitudes and beliefs play an important role in understanding health state preferences. Beyond Ireland this may have implications for: the construction of representative samples; understanding the values accorded health states and; the frequency with which value sets must be updated. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12955-018-0985-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-07-31 /pmc/articles/PMC6069795/ /pubmed/30064460 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0985-9 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Barry, Luke Hobbins, Anna Kelleher, Daniel Shah, Koonal Devlin, Nancy Goni, Juan Manuel Ramos O’Neill, Ciaran Euthanasia, religiosity and the valuation of health states: results from an Irish EQ5D5L valuation study and their implications for anchor values |
title | Euthanasia, religiosity and the valuation of health states: results from an Irish EQ5D5L valuation study and their implications for anchor values |
title_full | Euthanasia, religiosity and the valuation of health states: results from an Irish EQ5D5L valuation study and their implications for anchor values |
title_fullStr | Euthanasia, religiosity and the valuation of health states: results from an Irish EQ5D5L valuation study and their implications for anchor values |
title_full_unstemmed | Euthanasia, religiosity and the valuation of health states: results from an Irish EQ5D5L valuation study and their implications for anchor values |
title_short | Euthanasia, religiosity and the valuation of health states: results from an Irish EQ5D5L valuation study and their implications for anchor values |
title_sort | euthanasia, religiosity and the valuation of health states: results from an irish eq5d5l valuation study and their implications for anchor values |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6069795/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30064460 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0985-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT barryluke euthanasiareligiosityandthevaluationofhealthstatesresultsfromanirisheq5d5lvaluationstudyandtheirimplicationsforanchorvalues AT hobbinsanna euthanasiareligiosityandthevaluationofhealthstatesresultsfromanirisheq5d5lvaluationstudyandtheirimplicationsforanchorvalues AT kelleherdaniel euthanasiareligiosityandthevaluationofhealthstatesresultsfromanirisheq5d5lvaluationstudyandtheirimplicationsforanchorvalues AT shahkoonal euthanasiareligiosityandthevaluationofhealthstatesresultsfromanirisheq5d5lvaluationstudyandtheirimplicationsforanchorvalues AT devlinnancy euthanasiareligiosityandthevaluationofhealthstatesresultsfromanirisheq5d5lvaluationstudyandtheirimplicationsforanchorvalues AT gonijuanmanuelramos euthanasiareligiosityandthevaluationofhealthstatesresultsfromanirisheq5d5lvaluationstudyandtheirimplicationsforanchorvalues AT oneillciaran euthanasiareligiosityandthevaluationofhealthstatesresultsfromanirisheq5d5lvaluationstudyandtheirimplicationsforanchorvalues |