↓ Skip to main content

Does the Public Prefer Health Gain for Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review of Public Views on Cancer and its Characteristics

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
Does the Public Prefer Health Gain for Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review of Public Views on Cancer and its Characteristics
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40273-017-0511-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liz Morrell, Sarah Wordsworth, Sian Rees, Richard Barker

Abstract

Policies such as the Cancer Drugs Fund in England assumed a societal preference to fund cancer care relative to other conditions, even if that resulted in lower health gain for the population overall. The aim of this study was to investigate the evidence for such a preference among the UK public. The MEDLINE, PubMed and Econlit electronic databases were searched for studies relating to preferences for prioritising cancer treatment, as well as studies relating to preferences for the characteristics of cancer (severity of disease, end-of-life). The searches were run in November 2015 and updated in March 2017. Empirical preference studies, studies of public views, and studies in English were included. We identified 24 studies relating to cancer preferences. Two directly addressed health trade-offs in the UK-one showed a preference for health gain in cancer, while the other found no such preference but provided results consistent with population health maximisation. Other studies mostly showed support for cancer but did not require a direct health trade-off. Severity and end-of-life searches identified 12 and 6 papers, respectively, which were additional to existing reviews. There is consistent evidence that people give priority to severe illness, while results for end-of-life are mixed. We did not find consistent support for a preference for health gains to cancer patients in the context of health maximisation. The evidence base is small and the results are highly sensitive to study design. There remains a contradiction between these findings and the popular view of cancer, and further work is required to determine the features of cancer which contribute to that view.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 15 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 August 2017.
All research outputs
#2,420,180
of 24,525,534 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#189
of 1,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,516
of 315,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#3
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,525,534 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,958 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,331 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.