Hierarchies for data sources, reproduced from Cooper et al., 2005 [14].

<p>Hierarchies for data sources, reproduced from Cooper et al., 2005 [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0123853#pone.0123853.ref014" target="_blank">14</a>].</p

Cost-effectiveness league chart showing ICERs of interventions being evaluated in identified BMGF-funded cost-per-DALY studies (n = 20).

<p>IPTi: Intermittent preventive treatment for infants, IPTp: Intermittent preventive treatment for pregnant women, LLTNs: Long-lasting treated nets, ITNs: Insecticide treated nets, IRS: Indoor residual spray, JE: Japanese encephalitis, HPV: Human papilloma virus, DOTS: Directly observed treatment, short course. Source of consumer price index and purchasing power parity: IMF World economic outlook database.</p

Most aggregated outcome reported in EEs published in LMICs, either funded by BMGF or not (n = 204).

<p>DALY: Disability-Adjusted Life Year; QALY: Quality-Adjusted Life Year; LY: life year.</p

Flow of study selection.

<p>Flow of study selection.</p

Number of identified economic evaluations by type of funder, country income level of setting where the economic evaluation was conducted, and area of interest.

<p>SR: systematic review; EE: economic evaluation; BMGF: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; DALY: Disability-Adjusted Life Year; TB: tuberculosis</p><p>Number of identified economic evaluations by type of funder, country income level of setting where the economic evaluation was conducted, and area of interest.</p

Percentage of BMGF-funded cost-per-DALY studies adhering to good practices for reporting health economic evaluations adapted from CHEERS statement [13] (n = 20).

<p>Percentage of BMGF-funded cost-per-DALY studies adhering to good practices for reporting health economic evaluations adapted from CHEERS statement [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0123853#pone.0123853.ref013" target="_blank">13</a>] (n = 20).</p

Ranks of evidence used in the included BMGF-funded cost-per-DALY studies (n = 20).

<p>Full details of hierarchy of evidence were provided in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0123853#pone.0123853.t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a> [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0123853#pone.0123853.ref014" target="_blank">14</a>].</p

Impact of information and deliberation on the consistency of preferences for prioritisation in health care – evidence from discrete choice experiments undertaken alongside citizens’ juries

Public preferences are an important consideration for priority-setting. Critics suggest preferences of the public who are potentially naïve to the issue under consideration may lead to sub-optimal decisions. We assessed the impact of information and deliberation via a Citizens’ Jury (CJ) or preference elicitation methods (Discrete Choice Experiment, DCE) on preferences for prioritising access to bariatric surgery. Preferences for seven prioritisation criteria (e.g. obesity level, obesity-related comorbidities) were elicited from three groups who completed a DCE: (i) participants from two CJs (n = 28); (ii) controls who did not participate in the jury (n = 21); (iii) population sample (n = 1,994). Participants in the jury and control groups completed the DCE pre- and post-jury. DCE data were analysed using multinomial logit models to derive ‘priority weights’ for criteria for access to surgery. The rank order of criteria was compared across groups, time points and CJ recommendations. The extent to which the criteria were considered important were broadly consistent across groups and were similar to jury recommendations, but with variation in the rank order. Preferences of jurors but not controls were more differentiated (that is, criteria were assigned a greater range of priority weights) after than before the jury. Juror preferences pre-jury were similar to that of the public, but appeared to change during the course of the jury with greater priority given to a person with comorbidity. Conversely, controls appeared to give a lower priority to those with comorbidity and higher priority to treating very severe obesity after than before the jury. Being informed and undertaking deliberation had little impact on the criteria that were considered to be relevant for prioritising access to bariatric surgery but may have a small impact on the relative importance of criteria. CJs may clarify underlying rationale but may not provide substantially different prioritisation recommendations compared to a DCE.</p