Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Assessing societal and offender perspectives on the value of offender healthcare: a stated preference research protocol
  1. Stella Nalukwago Settumba1,
  2. Marian Shanahan2,
  3. Georgina, M Chambers3,
  4. Peter Schofield4,
  5. Tony Butler1
  1. 1Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  2. 2National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  3. 3Center for Big Data Research in Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  4. 4School of Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Stella Nalukwago Settumba; snalukwago{at}


Introduction The increasing burden that offenders place on justice and health budgets necessitates better methods to determine the benefits of and value society places on offender programmes to guide policy regarding resource allocation. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate how economic methods will be used to determine the strength of preferences and value of violent offender treatment programmes from the perspectives of offenders, their families and the general population.

Methods and analysis Two stated preference economic methods, discrete choice experiment (DCE) and contingent valuation (CV), will be used to assess society’s and offenders' value of treatment programmes. The mixed methods process involves a literature review and qualitative methods to derive attributes and levels for the DCE and payment card values for the CV. Consensus building approaches of voting, ranking and the Delphi method will be used to further refine the findings from the qualitative phase. Attributes and their levels will be used in a D-efficient Bayesian experimental design to derive choice scenarios for the development of a questionnaire that will also include CV questions. Finally, quantitative surveys to assess societal preferences and value in terms of willingness to pay will be conducted.

Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) Human Research Ethics Committee, Corrective Services New South Wales Ethics Committee and the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council ethics committee. The findings will be made available on the Kirby Institute UNSW website, published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences.

  • discrete choice experiment
  • contingent valuation
  • Delphi method
  • offender rehabilitation
  • violence
  • impulsivity

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:

Statistics from


  • Contributors SNS is involved in the study design, participant recruitment for the FGDs, data collection, analysis and write-up; GC and MSS are involved in the study design, data analysis and write-up; TB and PWS are involved in the study design, participant recruitment for the FGDs, data analysis and write-up. All authors have provided approval for the publication of this work and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

  • Funding This study was funded by grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, under the Centre of Research Excellence in Offender Health Australia [grant number RG124596]. It is part of the research done by the Justice Health Research Program, Kirby Institute, UNSW.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval Ethics approval for thisstudy has been provided for the two phases. Phase I ethicsapproval has been provided by UNSW—HigherRisk Ethics Committee, NSW Corrective Services Ethics Committee andAboriginal Health and Medical Research Council (AH & MRC) ethics committee. Phase II ethics approvalhas been provided by UNSW—Higher Risk Ethics Committeefor the DCE general population sample. If in future the DCE is to be conductedwith a sample from offenders, further ethics applications will be made to NSWcorrective services and AH & MRC ethicscommittees.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.