Health policy analysis
in full colour


Our research methods help policy makers make fairer decisions with better health outcomes.

The problem. Existing analyses focus on a mythical average citizen.

The solution. We develop ways of analysing who gains and loses from health policies.

Find out more

Monitoring Fairness in the NHS

Latest tweets

Cost-utility analysis using EQ-5D-5L data: does how the utilities are derived matter? https://t.co/KIy8J8TyWe @FanYangHealthEc

Hours worked by General Practitioners and waiting times for Primary Care https://t.co/aHp9puqKnf

The impact of waiting time on patient outcomes: Evidence from early intervention in psychosis services in England https://t.co/VuU6QckSn3

Load More...

New resources

2018

Publication details

Journal International journal of STD & AIDS
Date Accepted/In press - 23 Jul 2018
Number of pages 7
Original language English

Bibliographical note

This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy. Further copying may not be permitted; contact the publisher for details.

Publication details

Journal Health Economics
Date Accepted/In press - 12 Jun 2018
Date E-pub ahead of print (current) - 22 Jul 2018
Number of pages 18
Early online date 22/07/18
Original language English

Abstract

In principle, questionnaire data on public views about hypothetical trade-offs between improving total health and reducing health inequality can provide useful normative health inequality aversion parameter benchmarks for policymakers faced with real trade-offs of this kind. However, trade-off questions can be hard to understand, and one standard type of question finds that a high proportion of respondents-sometimes a majority-appear to give exclusive priority to reducing health inequality. We developed and tested two e-learning interventions designed to help respondents understand this question more completely. The interventions were a video animation, exposing respondents to rival points of view, and a spreadsheet-based questionnaire that provided feedback on implied trade-offs. We found large effects of both interventions in reducing the proportion of respondents giving exclusive priority to reducing health inequality, though the median responses still implied a high degree of health inequality aversion and-unlike the video-the spreadsheet-based intervention introduced a substantial new minority of non-egalitarian responses. E-learning may introduce as well as avoid biases but merits further research and may be useful in other questionnaire studies involving trade-offs between conflicting values.

Bibliographical note

© 2018 The Authors.

General Practitioners and Emergency Departments (GPED): Efficient Models of Care. A mixed-methods study protocol

Morton, K., Voss, S., Adamson, J., Baxter, H., Bloor, K. E., Brandling, J., Cowlishaw, S., Doran, T., Gibson, A., Gutacker, N., Liu, D., Purdy, S., Roy, P., Salisbury, C., Scantlebury, A., Vaittinen, A., Watson, R. M. & Benger, J. 16 Jul 2018 (Accepted/In press)

Article in BMJ Open

Publication details

Journal BMJ Open
Date Accepted/In press - 16 Jul 2018
Original language English

Bibliographical note

This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy. Further copying may not be permitted; contact the publisher for details

More

EQUIPOL is supported by the University of York, the Wellcome Trust (Grant No. 205427/Z/16/Z) and the NIHR (SRF-2013-06-015).

Image Image Image