Respondent
1 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
2 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
3 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
4 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
5 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
6 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
7 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
8 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
9 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
10 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
11 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
12 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
13 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
14 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
15 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
16 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
17 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
18 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
19 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
20 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
21 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
22 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
23 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
24 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
25 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
26 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
27 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
28 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
29 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
30 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
31 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
32 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
33 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
34 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
35 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
36 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
37 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
38 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
39 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
40 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
41 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
42 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
43 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
44 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
45 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
46 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
47 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
48 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
49 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
50 Fig. 2b
Fig. 2c
Fig. 2d
Fig. 2e
Fig. 2f
Respondent explanation
As both patients will suffer from severe anxiety depression, no preference
Avoid severe anxiety/depression
The difference between the two seems inconsequential
Avoid severe anxiety/depression at the prime of P's life: more of a burden than death
Fair innings
Because treating them will result in 2 more years of life at same quality as patient P
Because treating them results in longer life at same quality as P's life
Because at point of treatment, outcome is the same
Because Q gets most years of life at higher quality of life
Treating patient P gets more years of life in full health
More life years gained
Give treatment to the one who would have poorer health without it
Give treatment to the one who has had poorer lifetime health experience
Fair innings
Fair innings
More life years
Patient P's life without treatment will be worse than patient Q's without treatment
Both in same health state before - they probably have mechanisms to cope with the situation
Patient P has already had a good 60 yrs of full health
Younger person may be more productive, and also have young children to care for
More chance to live longer in the same health state
He suffers more than patient Q
Both have same chance of health state C for 10 years
Too young to die
Patient Q is too young to die
The difference between states B and C doesn't seem too big to enjoy normal life and work
Even without treatment, Q can enjoy reasonable standard of health
Treating patient P leads to cost-saving, as patient P requires other care givers
Treatment cost for more severe condition would be more expensive
The individual can contribute to wealth creation for longer time than patient Q
A balance of worse pre-treatment health state and higher post-treatment life years
Because without treatment Patient P is in a worse situation
Because patient Q has been more time in state E
He is very young, so it's fair to give him 20 more years than a person who has lived for 60 years
Because he's younger than patient P and the difference between years gained is only five years
I could not say that patient P's/Q's life is more or less worthy than vice versa
The only scenario in which I would consider choosing one over the other
is if I had to choose between saving a child's life and prolonging the life of a very old
person in an extremely bad health state [This respondent used the same comment for all of the questions]
S/he stands to benefit more in terms of longer life after treatment
S/he stands to benefit more in terms of longer life after treatment
Each patient has equal benefit after treatment
P is younger - society can also benefit more from him
Within the working/active life age, society can benefit more from him than from P
Patients and outcomes are too similar to choose between the patients on the basis of available information
Outcome is better for patient Q - therefore, better value for money (increase QoL)
Patient Q has had poorer lifetime health up to age 65
Trade-off between better QoL outcome for patient Q is difficult to make against 'fair innings' for patient P
Patient Q has had a lower life opportunity, despite slightly shorter benefit derived from the intervention
Regardless of the 2 years for Q, I couldn't justify picking him on such a small difference in treatment outcome
The non-treatment route for Q is less severe than that for P
The outcomes are the same at the point of treatment
Patient P is severely depressed which is not a good life, but is too young to die
Best outcome overall: 2 people live into their 50s in full health
Should have an equal chance
Severe childhood depression has profound non-health consequences in adulthood
No difference in benefits to individuals
Will not discriminate - life is precious and should be valued equally
Will not discriminate between the two - value of life is sacrosanct
We better give 'more life' to the one who had worse life before 25. 50-52 yrs is not a big difference
74-75 is an ok age to die
Since he didn't have full health, we can compensate by giving him some better health at the end of life
I'd rather have both patients live up to 40 and 60 rather than 20 and 85
I'd rather have both alive up to age 50-55 and enjoy their family
Allocating resources to Q gives more life years than P
I get more life years in treating Q than P
Prioritise the patient who is least likely to be aclimatised to health state E
Q's health state is much better than P's following treatment
After allocating resources, P has a further 30 yrs to Q's 25
Extra 2 yrs for Q not enough to sway decision. Health state C not depressed enough relative to B to choose P
If P does not receive treatment, he will live a shorter life than Q and in a poor health state
After age 65, they will live exactly the same life
Valuation based on trade off between years lived, years gained, and quality of life
Treatment for patient Q brings life up to approximate parity with P
Although Q has more life years to gain, from his perspective they'll be lower quality relative to patient P
Patient P has more to lose from foregoing treatment
Patient Q's been in poorer health all his life
I could justify this choice to patient Q
Equality/fair innings. I'm sure patient P would agree with my decision
P is starting out in a worse health state and would be more likely to benefit less from an extension of life in D
Too difficult to choose between 8 year olds for lifelong poor health states
An improvement in health at such an elderly age would be great but is not natural/realistic
Would want to extend the young person's life, but could extend the older person's life and lower the quality less
Both are fairly young and have good reason to live - e.g. have a family at 50 and start one at 30
P had a worse first 25 years, and may enjoy post treatment life more as he moves only one state down
In this scenario my mind only considered the quality of life gained from treatment
Q suffered more until treatment was available
I couldn't ignore that someone should die at age 20 by giving treatment to someone who already had 60 years
Priority to the younger person
I have the opportunity to give 17 additional years
Without treatment, P's quality of life will be low. Policy maker has to ensure minimum QoL
Patient Q has never lived in full health, and could experience a large improvement in overall QoL
Patient P needs support to enlarge his life, even though his QoL is not favourable
Q is younger and has the opportunity to live the most productive years. It is more tragic to die at 30 than 50
Patient P is more deserving of the two. Also, not much difference between states C and D
Gains more from treatment and suffers more severe disease without treatment
More deserving as Q has never lived in full health
Treat younger patient
Patient Q is younger but patient P lives longer after treatment
The treatment for patient Q will gain 2 more years of life
Patient P with treatment will gain more marginal utility than patient Q
P and Q are at the same health states, so choose randomly
Only because patient P is very young
Patient Q is young
Patient Q is healthier to start with, and will benefit more in terms of LYG
Patient Q benefits more from treatment in terms of LYG
Patient P has more years of healthy life - treating him could be more beneficial as overall costs may be reduced
Patient Q is in better health overall, and after treatment is in rather good shape too
Both could be at points in their life when they need this treatment most
Not much difference between health states, ages and life-years gained
P's case is more severe - worse health state and less time to live
Q had worse health all his life. Try to make up for some of it
For Q, quite reasonable. P's case is more severe
It's way to soon to die if you're only 30 years old
Since patient Q is already in B, the treatment will mean much more to P
The loss to P is greater without treatment, and they die at similar ages if P is treated
Patient P has lived in better health for more years
Q has already lived in full health for 60 years and it is fair to give a chance to the younger patient
P has already lived 20 more years than Q and therefore its fair to treat Q
Q would have dropped further and will have a harder time adjusting, but will live 2 years longer
Without treatment, Q lives an ok quality of life, whereas P's is greatly diminished
Patient P will benefit from treatment, but so will patient Q
P is young whereas Q has had a longer shot at life
One is younger but the other will gain more
Q remembers how it feels to be relatively healthy, and may struggle to retain happiness after treatment
Health in C seems more manageable than D and E. Similar age of death for treated P and untreated Q
Both have same post-treatment health, so I allocate for bad reasons. Q has been sicker for longer
Grant the opportunity for a full life
With treatment, Q then may be able to reproduce and live a fuller life
2 extra years gained
The loss in QoL for P outweighs the extra years gained for Q
Both have same outcomes with respect to QoL and LYG
Treating the younger patient seems a fairer use of resources
Lives longer in full health
Q was in better health throughout life
He will be worse off than patient Q if there is no treatment
At that point in both patients lives, and after so many years of ill health, can be random
Would rather provide for someone who can be in A/B than in C/D
It is preferable to keep people alive for as long as possible in full health
Despite the 2 year difference in LYG, only difference is health status. Post-treatment health status doesn't differ
The extra life years for Q don't justify the lower health for P. By selecting P, no one's status is below C
Treatment will not restore either patient to full health or grant added years to one or the other
Because treatment gives more years at better quality
More quality life years
The extra 2 years for Q offsets the equity consideration (that P deserves it because of lower initial health)
The difference between treatment and no treatment is greatest for P
Patient P had longer in better health. Patient Q deserves the increased health state
Greater gain in life years for Q and better quality years (which is also better for society)
Patient Q deserves a decent life span
Patient Q has 2 additional years of life when treated
Without treatment, P will be in D and E, which is more severe than C for Q
Both benefit almost equally from treatment
Young should be given opportunity to live, even if in poor health. At 60, won't contribute much to the economy
With treatment, Q gives extra 25 years of economic benefit to the country which P will be too old to give
Can't make up my mind between compensating P or choosing Q because he lives longer
I think not treating P would be more evil than not treating Q
Has already spent a lot of time in B and E
Q will benefit more, and will be able to appreciate a longer life
Patient Q would miss out on way too much
Longer life
After treatment, Q has longer life
Allow Q time in better health state
Treatment allows 25 years in the better health state
Longer life after the treatment
Larger fall in health status of patient Q, even though 2 extra years can be achieved
Although P has less life expectancy with treatment, will experience higher net gain in health status
Both derive the same health status with treatment
Value years gained at a younger age greater than later in life, even if QoL is not the same
Although Q will gain 5 fewer years, he will gain them earlier in life. I value gained years more in younger patients
More effective treatment
P's treatment seems better - without it his health would be far worse than Q's
Too hard to decide
I would prefer to extend the life of the younger patient
I would prefer to to extend the life of the younger person, given that treatment effect is about the same
Has the chance to live a longer life
Without treatment, Q would be better off, and if I save P, Q will live one year longer
Both patients would then have an equal distribution of health
P gets fewer life years in worse health with treatment
If I save Q, P and Q die at similar ages, so I'm valuing saving younger life
They are the same age and treatment gives almost the same outcome for both
P will suffer severe health problems without treatment whereas Q won't
The treatment has the same outcome for both
Although the treatment outcome is better for Q, P is very young
Q is younger, and can be productive for 25 years. P has already enjoyed his life
About the same utility generated
More utility is generated
The treatment creates the same utility for both
P could do more with the extra years, but Q would have more utility
Younger life years are more valuable
P has been miserable for 15 yrs, but Q will get 2 more years
Without treatment, has episodes of infermity
Less time with severe problems
Longer life without problems
Longer life
Insufficient difference in QoL and longevity pre and post-treatment
QoL of C for Q isn't as bad as D/E for P over 64/65 yrs
As post-treatment outcome is the same, giving it to Q seems to be a redressing mechanism
P ought to get it for a fair innings, but Q benefits more
Q ought to get it for a fair innings, but P benefits more
Patient Q requires less health care resources, and has higher QoL before treatment
Without treatment, Q will require costly care. State C for Q is not great, but he can take care of himself
Treatment will allow both patients to return to state C
Patient Q will have better QoL and will be less burdensome and more productive
Both time periods - 30-55 and 50-80 - are economically and socially significant
Patient Q will live longer with similar health
Q will live for longer years
After treatment both will live for another 10 years with same disabilities
P is younger and will live 20 more years if treated. Q has reached almost end of life
Patient Q is younger and will be able to contribute more to the family and society
P deserves it more as he's been in a worse situation in the past
Without treatment, P will suffer more
They will both get the same treatment benefit, but Q has suffered more in the past
Although P is younger, the treatment will give him 40 years of bad health
Both will live more or less the same years, both in full health
P has lived in a poorer health state until 25, so can accept his health deterioration in a better way
I'd treat P because the treatment period is less but the health state is the same
Because he has experienced more problems throughout his life
It'd be better to treat an old person who's lived a healthy life than to see a young person gradually die
I'd choose Q because the treatment would be 5 years less
Both will be in D for roughly the same amount of time
Without treatment, P would suffer worse health states (D/E) than Q (C) over the same period
To equalise the amount of time each patient is in E
Treatment would be of greater benefit to the overall lifetime health of P than that of Q
Little difference in number of LYG. I don't think it's justified to prioritise according to age
Patient Q will gain two more years than P at the same quality
Because Q will gain 5 more years in A which s/he can use to benefit society
We should give to Q as he has lived life in a lower health state, so it will give him more satisfaction
Q will gain more years at higher quality health
At younger years, Q will produce more benefit for society. We should also prefer Q on the basis of humanity
Neither patient either before or after treatment will be a great asset to society
More of a difference for P. Q lives adequate life without treatment
Both treatments have same results. Policy making requires one to look to the future
It's good to prolong a short life, but P has little to gain - little value for society
50 yrs for P is substantial. Allowing Q to live at 30 for 25 years gives good return to society
Q lives longer at the same quality of life
Patient P would seem to have greater benefit from treatment
Patient Q will come back closest to initial state of health with treatment
Depends on how you value different ages
Depends on how much one valued certain ages of life
Because Q hasn't consumed much treatment in the first 25 years
Q, because he would need minimal health care resources if he died in state A
Because P would have consumed fewer resources earlier in life
Q would consume fewer resources and would be more productive
P would have more productive years ahead, without requiring additional treatments
Q has better health state (B) than P (C), and is therefore more productive
Patient P without treatment is less productive and enjoys life less than patient Q without treatment
Health state after treatment is the same
We need young people to be helpful to society
I prefer to give opportunity to live to young people, and a 30 year old is more productive than at 60/70