Published: February 9, 2022

Introduction

This project addresses the evaluation of non-pharmaceutical interventions during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, aiming to provide evidence for informed decision-making. The significance lies in understanding the value and preferences of these interventions amidst real-world challenges, such as balancing public health with personal freedoms and economic impacts.

Client's Problem

The challenge is evaluating the value of these interventions, such as lockdowns, considering their significant impact on livelihoods and lives. Stakeholders include the general population and decision-makers who must balance public health benefits with social and financial implications. Unique constraints are the uncertainty surrounding the virus's severity and duration complicates evaluating intervention effectiveness. Dynamic shifts in individual preferences and pandemic scenarios add to the complexity of the evaluation.

Proposed Solution

A preference study was implemented to assess the acceptability and value of interventions. Using mixed-methods like best-worst scaling (BWS) and discrete choice experiments (DCE) with a partial profile design, the study aimed to capture individual trade-offs and preferences, informing evidence-based decision-making.

Human-Centered Approach

The solution prioritized understanding individual needs and values by integrating comprehensive decision models and stated preference methods. By considering societal impacts and evolving preferences, the study ensured alignment with human needs, guiding policymakers towards acceptable and effective interventions.

Impact on Decision Makers

The study provided valuable insights, making decision-making for policymakers more efficient by balancing health outcomes with societal acceptance. Results highlighted the acceptability thresholds for interventions, aiding in the development of more acceptable policies.

Conclusion

The project generated evidence informing the acceptability of interventions, ensuring alignment with human needs. By directly considering human preferences, it guided policymakers towards more effective and acceptable interventions during the pandemic.

Broader Implications

The human-centered approach in this study can serve as a template for addressing various societal challenges beyond the pandemic, emphasizing the importance of understanding human preferences. Recognizing and integrating human preferences and values into solutions fosters inclusivity and sustainability, benefiting individuals and societies alike.

References

Mühlbacher, Axel C., Andrew Sadler, and Yvonne Jordan. "Population preferences for non-pharmaceutical interventions to control the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: trade-offs among public health, individual rights, and economics." The European Journal of Health Economics 23.9 (2022): 1483-1496.

Mühlbacher, Axel, and F. Reed Johnson. "Choice experiments to quantify preferences for health and healthcare: state of the practice." Applied health economics and health policy 14 (2016): 253-266. 

Mühlbacher, Axel C., et al. "Experimental measurement of preferences in health care using best-worst scaling (BWS): theoretical and statistical issues." Health economics review 6 (2016): 1-12.

Mühlbacher, Axel, and Susanne Bethge. "What matters in type 2 diabetes mellitus oral treatment? A discrete choice experiment to evaluate patient preferences." The European Journal of Health Economics 17 (2016): 1125-1140.