What public health interventions do people in Canada prefer to fund? A discrete choice experiment

Author:

Card Kiffer G.,Adshade Marina,Hogg Robert S.,Jollimore Jody,Lachowsky Nathan J.

Abstract

Abstract Objective To assess public support of tailored and targeted public health interventions for marginalized communities. Methods We conducted a discrete choice experiment using a web-based survey advertised to Facebook and Instagram users living in Canada, aged > 16. Participants were asked to choose between funding two hypothetical public health programs. Each program was described by its purpose; expected increase in life expectancy; and target audience. Demographically weighted generalized linear mixed-effects models were constructed to identify program factors associated with program selection. Results Participants completed up to 8 discrete choice comparison exercises each resulting in 23,889 exercises were completed by 3054 participants. Selected programs were less likely to focus on prevention (vs. treatment). For each 1-year increase in the marginal years of life gained, there was a 15% increase in the odds of a program being selected. Interventions tailored to marginalized communities or targeting stigmatized health conditions were less likely to be selected compared to interventions targeted to the general population or targeting chronic health conditions. Noteworthy exceptions included an increased preference for interventions aligning with the perceived needs or cultural expectations for marginalized communities. Conclusions Stigmatizing perceptions of health conditions and key populations likely influence public health programming preferences of Canadians. Public health implications Informational campaigns highlighting disparities experienced by marginalized populations may improve support for targeted and tailored interventions.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Reference59 articles.

1. Kluge EHW. Resource allocation in healthcare: implications of models of medicine as a profession. Medscape Gen Med. 2007;9(1):57.

2. Porter TM. The rise of statistical thinking, 1820–1900. Reprint edition: Princeton University Press; 1988.

3. Berestova AV, Orlov SA, Gorenkov RV, Starostin VP. Ethics in medical decision making: an intercultural outlook. Utopía Prax Latinoam. 2019;24:144–51.

4. Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice, Institute of Medicine. Culture as a Social Determinant of Health: National Academies Press (US); 2013. Accessed 6 Aug 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK201298/

5. Conrad P, Barker KK. The social construction of illness: key insights and policy implications. J Health Soc Behav. 2010;51(1_suppl):S67–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510383495.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3