Table 2.

Identified studies—context

Authors (date)	Tested inequality	Range of relevant inequality	Tested change
Ali et al. (2017) [7]	YFH	YFH: 62–74	YFH
Anand and Wailoo (2000) [39]	LE	LE: 70–84	Priority
Baker et al. (2010) [35]	LT QALYs (DC)	LT QALYs: < 76	LT QALYs (DC)
Dolan and Tsuchiya (2005) [23]	LT QALYs (DC)	LT QALYs: < 66	LT QALYs (DC)
Dolan and Tsuchiya (2011)b [8]	LE	LE: 73–78	LE
Edlin et al. (2012) [24]	LT QALYs (C + DC)	LT QALYs: 52–76	LT QALYs (C + DC)a
Lancsar et al. (2011) [36]	LT QALYs (DC)	LT QALYs: 60–80	LT QALYs (DC)
NICE (2006) [40]	General health	–	Priority
Petrou et al. (2013) [33]	Age at death	Age at death: 60–90	Extra years at full health
Rowen et al. (2016)c [37]	BOI QALYs (DC)	Absolute QALY burden framed	QALYs (DC)
Rowen et al. (2016)c [31]	BOI QALYs (DC)	Absolute QALY burden framed	QALYs (DC)
Robson et al. (2017) [6]	YFH	YFH: 62–74	YFH
Tsuchiya et al. (2003) [38]	Age at death	Age: 55–70	Age at death
Tsuchiya and Dolan (2007) [9]	LE	LE: 73 vs 78	LE
Tsuchiya and Dolan (2009) [41]	LE	LE: 73 vs 78	LE

BOI burden of illness, LT lifetime, YFH years of life in full health over the average person’s lifetime, DC decomposed (QALY profile presented in terms of LE, and QoL, but not as a unified figure), C composed (QALY figure presented)

^a[24] involves choices between different profiles, not changes in existing profiles, so this is technically not a “tested change”

^bNote that [8] also tested aversion between the “healthiest” and “unhealthiest” quintiles of society, these labels are ambiguous and may be interpreted as reflecting the lifestyle of these groups, their lifestyle and their outcomes, or their outcomes alone. As a result, they were excluded

^cNote that both Rowen et al. papers take a forward looking, rather than lifetime perspective—these studies are included under the assumption that BOI has a linear impact upon the preferences of the public (see “Eligibility criteria” for further detail)