Keeping an eye on cost : what can eye tracking tell us about attention to cost information in discrete choice experiments?

The University of Aberdeen and the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates fund the Health Economics Research Unit (HERU). We thank all participants who took part in the study, Alison Findlay for help with data collection, HESG participants, the editor, anonymous reviewers, and Dr Frouke Hermens for helpful comments and suggestions on the paper. The information and views set out in the article are those of the authors.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

To pay or not to pay? : Cost information processing in the valuation of publicly funded healthcare

Acknowledgments We thank all participants who took part in the study and three anonymous reviewers for their comments on the paper. The design of the discrete choice experiment on which this paper draws was shaped by a team that included, alongside two of the authors, Professor Chris Burton, Professor Vikki Entwistle, Professor Christine Bond, Dr Terry Porteous and Dr Alison Elliott. Funding sources The original DCE study was funded by the Health Foundation. This work has been funded by the University of Aberdeen and the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. These sponsors were not involved in the study design, data analysis and writing of the article. The information and views set out in the article are those of the authors.Peer reviewedPostprin

Weighting or aggregating? Investigating information processing in multi‐attribute choices

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The design of the choice experiment on which this paper draws was shaped by a team that included, alongside two of the authors, Professor Chris Burton, Professor Vikki Entwistle, Dr Terry Porteous and Dr Alison Elliott. The original CE study was funded by the Health Foundation. The University of Aberdeen and the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates fund the Health Economics Research Unit (HERU). The kidney transplantation choice experiment study was funded by the “Progetto di Ateneo KIDNEY” from the University of Padua (Italy). We would like to thank Daniel Rigby (The University of Manchester), Jürgen Maurer (Université de Lausanne), Giacomo Pasini (Ca' Foscari University of Venice), and Luca Corazzini (Ca' Foscari University of Venice) for their helpful comments. Funding: Health Foundation. Grant Number: THF 7264Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Immigration and the utilization of preventive care in Europe: Results from retrospective data

We used retrospective information from the Survey on Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) to analyze the utilization patterns of preventive care around the time of migration of a representative sample of migrants in Europe. We find heterogeneous behaviours across different types of preventive care. Migrants increase the utilization of dental care significantly as soon as they reach the host country compared to the years immediately before migration, while migrant women increase their use of blood pressure tests, gynaecological visits, and mammogram tests progressively after migration. Other types of care do not exhibit particular patterns in relation to the migration episode. We also observe relevant differences in preventive care use around migration by country of origin. Our results suggest that preventive care use by migrants cannot be given for granted and is intimately linked to the process of integration in the host countr

Immigration and the utilization of preventive care in Europe : Results from retrospective data

Preprin

Combining the Retrospective Interviews of Wave 3 and Wave 7: The Third Release of the SHARE Job Episodes Panel

Data about working life histories, migration histories, fertility histories and marriage/cohabitation histories collected in the third wave of the SHARE survey were organised into a retrospective panel as described in Brugiavini, Cavapozzi, Pasini, and Trevisan (2013) and Antonova, Aranda, Pasini, and Trevisan (2014). In wave 7 respondents from the new countries were included in the survey and refresher sample respondents from the “old” countries were administered the retrospective questionnaire for the first time. We now combine all the life histories into a single panel dataset and add a new variable reporting the working/non-working condition each year

Understanding public preferences and trade-offs for government responses during a pandemic : a protocol for a discrete choice experiment in the UK

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

A Systematic Review of Patients’ Values, Preferences, and Expectations for the Treatment of Metastatic Prostate Cancer

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Metastatic prostate cancer men’s attitudes towards treatment of the local tumour and metastasis evaluative research (IP5-MATTER) : protocol for a prospective, multicentre discrete choice experiment study

Acknowledgements We would like to thank all the participants, study PIs, trial clinicians, research nurses, Imperial Clinical Trial Unit staff and other site staff who have been responsible for setting up, recruiting participants and collecting the data for the IP5-MATTER trial. We are also grateful for the ongoing support of the Trial Management Group and our IP5-MATTER patient representatives. Finally, we would like to thank our trial funder the Wellcome Trust and University College London Hospitals (UCLH) Charity. Funding MJC’s research is support by University College London Hospitals (UCLH) Charity and the Wellcome Trust. Mesfin Genie and Verity Watson are based at the Health Economics Research Unit (HERU), University of Aberdeen. HERU is funded by the Chief Scientists Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate. KTJ acknowledges research grant from the UK National Institute of Health Research Clinical Research Network Eastern and has received educational grants from Bayer UK, Janssen Oncology, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda. HUA’s research is supported by core funding from the United Kingdom’s National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Imperial Biomedical Research Centre.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Public preferences for vaccination campaigns in the COVID-19 endemic phase: insights from the VaxPref database

Objective Despite widespread perceptions that SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) is no longer a significant threat, the virus continues to loom, and new variants may require renewed efforts to control its spread. Understanding how individual preferences and attitudes influence vaccination behaviour and policy compliance in light of the endemic phase is crucial in preparation for this scenario. Method This paper presents descriptive data from a global stated choice survey conducted in 22 countries across 6 different continents between July 2022 and August 2023, and reports the methodological work developed to address the need for comparable data. Results This study included 50,242 respondents. Findings indicated significant heterogeneity across countries in terms of vaccination status and willingness to accept boosters. Vaccine hesitancy and refusal were driven by lower trust in public health bodies, younger age, and lower educational levels. Refusers and hesitant people reported lower willingness to take risks compared to those fully vaccinated (p<0.05). Lower mental health levels were found for the hesitant cohort (p<0.05). Conclusions Insights from this database can help public health authorities to gain a new understanding of the vaccine hesitancy phenomenon, support them in managing the transition from the pandemic to the endemic phase, and favour a new stream of research to maximise behavioural response to vaccination programs in preparation of future pandemics