Patient Preference and Adherence (Jul 2023)
Comparison of Rare and Common Diseases in the Setting of Healthcare Priorities: Evidence of Social Preferences Based on a Systematic Review
Abstract
Yichun Gu,1,* Anqi Wang,2,* Huan Tang,3 Haode Wang,4 Yuji Jiang,5 Chunlin Jin,1 Haiyin Wang1 1Shanghai Health Development Research Center, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China; 2School of Public Health, Weifang Medical University, Weifang, Shandong, People’s Republic of China; 3School of Public Health, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China; 4School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK; 5Business School, Imperial College London, London, UK*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Chunlin Jin; Haiyin Wang, Shanghai Health Development Research Center, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China, Tel +8613162429202 ; +8618917769216, Email [email protected]; [email protected]: 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.Keywords: rare diseases, common diseases, healthcare, priority, social preference, social willingness to pay
