What Does the Public Prefer Versus What Is the Public Ready to Forgo?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study uses a novel approach to assess the publics' ability to cope with priority setting and rationing in health care by asking what the public is willing to forego. Items for disinvestment were presented in three separated dimensions: Categories of medical care, quality of service, and items representing social values. A telephone survey was conducted among a representative sample of the Israeli public (N = 609). The response rate was 51%. We identify a few items that a high proportion of the population express readiness to forgo: a drug for smoking cessation, budgets for improving appearance and comfort in medical facilities, and a product for preventing surgical scars. Furthermore, over a quarter of the public was ready to forgo many other items. We found that less than 10% justified their selection in terms of "personally not important to me," while most respondents evaluated the items they chose to forgo as "less effective or less essential in comparison to others." The study found that most respondents, when exposed to a range of health system components, were able to identify at least one item that they will be willing to forgo in a time of economic crisis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.055 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".