Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-06T10:17:40.279Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The public’s preferences concerning the allocation of financial resources to health care: results from a representative population survey in Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2020

Herbert Matschinger  and
Matthias C. Angermeyer
Herbert Matschinger*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Leipzig, Johannisallee 20, 04317Leipzig, Germany
Matthias C. Angermeyer
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Leipzig, Johannisallee 20, 04317Leipzig, Germany
*
*Corresponding author. Email address: math@medizin.uni-leipzig.de
Get access

Abstract

Objective.

– The aim of the study is to examine to what extent the public is willing to allocate financial resources to the care of people with mental disorders.

Methods.

– In 2001, a representative survey was conducted among the adult population of Germany (n = 5025). The respondents were asked to select three out of nine conditions for which available resources should on no account be shortened. For data analysis, multiple unidimensional unfolding was used.

Results.

– Compared with medical diseases, the respondents were far less willing to allocate financial resources to the care of people with psychiatric disorders, making a clear distinction between the two types of diseases. While familiarity with mental illness had the effect of decreasing the reluctance to spend money for psychiatric patients, the endorsement of traditional values increased it.

Conclusion.

– Our findings point to both the chances and the limitations of efforts aimed at reducing the structural discrimination of people with mental illness.

Keywords

Mental illnessDiscriminationPopulation surveyMultiple unidimensional unfolding
Type
Original article
Information
European Psychiatry , Volume 19 , Issue 8 , December 2004 , pp. 478 - 482
Copyright
Copyright © European Psychiatric Association 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Angermeyer, MC. From intuition to evidence-based anti-stigma interventions. World Psychiatry 2002;1:21–2.Google ScholarPubMed
Angermeyer, MCMatschinger, H.Social distance towards the mentally ill: results of representative surveys in the Federal Republic of Germany. Psychol Med 1997;27:131–41.Google ScholarPubMed
Angermeyer, MCMatschinger, H.The stereotype of schizophrenia and its impact on the discrimination of people with schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 2004 [in press].Google Scholar
Angermeyer, MCSchulze, B.Reinforcing stereotypes: the focus on forensic cases in news reporting and its influence on public attitudes towards the mentally ill. Int J Law Psychiatry 2001;24:469–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coombs, CH. A theory of data. New York, London, Sidney: Wiley; 1964.Google Scholar
Guttman, L.The quantification of a class of attributes: a theory and method of scale construction. In: Horst, P, editor. The prediction of personal adjustment. New York: Social Science Research Council; 1941. p. 319–48.Google Scholar
Gutièrrez-Lobos, K.Rechtliche Benachteiligung psychisch Kranker in Österreich [Legal discrimination of mentally disordered people in Austria]. Neuropsychiatrie 2002;16:22–6.Google Scholar
Hadorn, DC. Setting health care priorities in Oregon. Cost-effectiveness meets the rule of rescue. JAMA 1991;265:2218–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayward, PBright, JA.Stigma and mental illness: a review and critique. J Ment Health 1997;6:345–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonson, A.Bentham in a box: technology assessment and health care allocation. Law Med Health Care 1986;14:172–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendell, RE. The next 25 years. Br J Psychiatry 2000;176:6–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Link, BGPhelan, JC.Conceptualizing stigma. Ann Rev Sociol 2001; 27:363–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Link, BGStruening, ELNeese-Todd, SAsmussen, SPhelan, JC.The consequences of stigma for the self-esteem of people with mental illnesses. Psychiatr Serv 2001;52:1621–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loevinger, J.The technique of homogeneous tests compared with some aspects of scale analysis and factor analysis. Psychol Bull 1948;45:507–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maag, G.Zur Erfassung von Werten in der Umfrageforschung: Ein empirischer Beitrag zur Neukonzeptualisierung und Operational-isierung [The assessment of value orientations in survey research. An empirical contribution to its conceptualization and operationalization]. Z Soziol 1989;18:313–23.Google Scholar
Murray, JLLopez, AD.The global burden of disease. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1996.Google ScholarPubMed
Post, WJ. Nonparametric unfolding models. Leiden: DSWO Press; 1992.Google Scholar
van Schuur WH, Kiers, AH.Why factor analysis is often the incorrect model for analyzing bipolar concepts, and what model to use instead. Appl Psychol Meas 1994;18:97–110.Google Scholar
van Schuur, WHPost, WJ.MUDFOLD A program for MULTIPLE UNIDIMENSIONAL UNFOLDING Version 4.0. Groningen: iec ProGAMMA; 1998.Google Scholar
Van Schuur, WH.Nonparametrical unidimensional unfolding for mul-ticategory data. Polit Anal 1993;4:41–74.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.