ArticlePloS one2025
A qualitative study to understand public views on the relative value of health gains for children and young people in Australia compared to adults.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Are Health Gains to Children and Adolescents More Important Than Health Gains to Adults? A Person Trade-Off Study.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesStandard economic evaluation methods assume that quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) have equal social value, regardless of recipient. However, evidence suggests that people place greater social value on health gains for children. This study examines the factors driving age-related preferences for health gains.
methodsThink-aloud, semi-structured interviews were conducted with Australian adolescents (n = 7), non-parents (n = 11), parents with healthy children (n = 8) and parents of children with health conditions (n = 15) over a period of four months (27th March 2023-20th July 2023). Participants completed Person Trade-Off (PTO) and attitudinal questions about resource allocation for improvements in life extension, mental health, mobility, and pain/discomfort choosing between interventions for adults (ages 40 or 55) and younger people (ages one month to 24). Thematic analysis was employed to identify fundamental reasoning patterns.
resultsNine themes emerged, illustrating participants' complex reasoning. They considered differences in the impact of health problems at various ages, with difficulty envisaging mental health impacts for very young children. Emotional responses were strongest around children in pain. Adolescents tended to prioritize younger people, while parents often emphasized adults' caregiving role. Most participants prioritized based on age in PTO questions, though some adults objected to prioritizing healthcare based on age.
conclusionChoices were shaped by perceptions of the impact of the health states. These qualitative insights help to inform the development of different approaches in healthcare resource allocation highlighting the importance of involving a diverse range of participants with varying views in the decision-making process. The findings also provide insight into interpreting quantitative results from PTO tasks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.