Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public preferences are typically incorporated into cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) on the basis of the average health state utilities of a sample of individuals drawn from the general public. The cost-effectiveness of a programme is then assessed on an 'all-or-nothing' basis: the programme is declared either cost-effective or not for all patients in clinically homogeneous sub-groups. However, this approach fails to recognize variability between individuals in their preferences. In this paper, we consider how diversity in the preferences of individuals can be handled within CEA when the public's preferences are considered appropriate for defining benefit, with the objective of increasing the efficiency of health care delivery. The concept of preference sub-group analysis is described and some of its implications are assessed. These include the methods that could be used to identify sub-groups from amongst public raters, the appropriate approach to eliciting preferences and the possible implications of preference sub-group analysis for clinical decision making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.126 | 0.320 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".