Comparison of Rare and Common Diseases in the Setting of Healthcare Priorities: Evidence of Social Preferences Based on a Systematic Review

8Citations
Citations of this article
26Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: In light of the limited availability of healthcare resources, providing universal access to healthcare is a challenging task. As a result, prioritizing healthcare services has emerged as a crucial issue. This study aims to explore the preferences of the public regarding healthcare prioritization for rare and common diseases. By examining public attitudes, this study seeks to inform government decisions concerning resource allocation and distribution within healthcare. Methods: “Social preference” and “rare disease” were searched as MeSH terms in the electronic databases of Ovid Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and Econlit for articles published since their establishment, and the information on the characteristics of the articles and the results of social preferences for rare diseases were analyzed and summarized. Results: The public held predominantly neutral views on the setting of healthcare priorities for rare and common diseases. The results of the included studies showed that with all else being equal, no social preference for rarity was found, but when the public considered the proportional advantage of rare diseases or when the respondents were young, a social preference for rarity existed. In addition, the public weighed attributes such as the health benefits of treatments, the effectiveness of treatment options, the safety of treatment, equity, unmet needs, and disease severity in the process of setting of treatment priorities for rare diseases. Furthermore, in consideration of equity, the public showed a willingness to pay for rare diseases in spite of the high medical costs. Conclusion: International studies on social preferences provide some evidence for the setting of healthcare priorities for rare diseases, and health policymakers should consider social preferences in an integrated manner in order to set healthcare priorities appropriately.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Gu, Y., Wang, A., Tang, H., Wang, H., Jiang, Y., Jin, C., & Wang, H. (2023). Comparison of Rare and Common Diseases in the Setting of Healthcare Priorities: Evidence of Social Preferences Based on a Systematic Review. Patient Preference and Adherence. Dove Medical Press Ltd. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S416226

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free