Subjective wellbeing and suicide prevention resource allocation

Abstract Background Healthcare resource allocation often prioritizes economic efficiency, but alternative approaches emphasizing ethics, social justice, and needs are equally important. This study investigates how subjective well-being, personal experiences with health conditions, and resource allocation decisions relate to saving lives of individuals at risk from various health conditions. Methods Data were collected from 1,000 Swedish respondents via a web survey during December 2021-January 2022, amid the Omicron wave of COVID-19. The survey included a discrete choice experiment (DCE) designed to identify preferences for allocating limited healthcare resources to save lives threatened by suicide, pancreatic cancer, breast cancer, and acute heart attack. Additional questions captured socio-demographic characteristics, personal experiences, attitudes, and life satisfaction. Results Our results suggest that respondents with high life satisfaction and no personal experience with the four health conditions prioritized allocating limited healthcare resources to relatively young people, but not to suicide prevention. Public preferences correlated with life satisfaction levels, with those reporting higher life satisfaction placing lower value on suicide prevention compared to saving lives from other conditions. Conclusions Public preferences for healthcare resource allocation are influenced by both life satisfaction and personal experiences with health conditions. These findings highlight the importance of incorporating public preferences and subjective well-being measures in healthcare priority-setting frameworks, particularly when allocating limited resources during public health crises.