| Popis: |
Background: Resource allocation decisions are made based on the principle of maximizing population health (efficiency). However, in practice, much higher willingness-to-pay thresholds are used for cancer therapies, with limited supportive evidence. Objective: To quantify Canadian public preferences on trade-offs between cancer and non-cancer health outcomes. Methods: Our systematic review identified 7 studies, but none evaluated cancer trade-offs. We conducted a survey using a sample of 300 respondents, with three resource allocation scenarios: (1) cancer versus non-cancer; (2) lung cancer versus heart failure; and (3) lung cancer prevention versus diabetes prevention. Results: The median respondent preferred health maximization, irrespective of the health condition. Across scenarios 1/2/3, only 29%, 10%, and 26%, respectively, were willing to trade-off efficiency to prioritize cancer outcomes. Regression analysis did not find any significant associations. Conclusion: We did not find evidence to support a higher preference for sacrificing total health to improve cancer outcomes over non-cancer outcomes. |
