↓ Skip to main content

Lifetime QALY prioritarianism in priority setting: quantification of the inherent trade-off

Overview of attention for article published in Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#15 of 533)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
49 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Lifetime QALY prioritarianism in priority setting: quantification of the inherent trade-off
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1478-7547-12-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Trygve Ottersen, Ottar Mæstad, Ole Frithjof Norheim

Abstract

Multiple principles are relevant in priority setting, two of which are often considered particularly important. According to the greater benefit principle, resources should be directed toward the intervention with the greater health benefit. This principle is intimately linked to the goal of health maximization and standard cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). According to the worse off principle, resources should be directed toward the intervention benefiting those initially worse off. This principle is often linked to an idea of equity. Together, the two principles accord with prioritarianism; a view which can motivate non-standard CEA. Crucial for the actual application of prioritarianism is the trade-off between the two principles, and this trade-off has received scant attention when the worse off are specified in terms of lifetime health. This paper sheds light on that specific trade-off and on the public support for prioritarianism by providing fresh empirical evidence and by clarifying the close links between the findings and normative theory.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 47 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 21%
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 15 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 29%
Psychology 5 10%
Unspecified 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 15 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 March 2020.
All research outputs
#1,122,007
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#15
of 533 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,192
of 321,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 533 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 321,171 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them