In reply: We are intrigued by the discrepancy between our findings1 and the 2007 Ipsos study results2 noted by Armitage. We took a psychometrically rigorous approach to measuring the public’s preference for health care systems. If our pro-private statements seem “leading”, then the pro-public statements (“Australia should adopt a collective social health system supported by higher taxes as is done in some Scandinavian countries”, “I would be willing to pay higher taxes to improve Australia’s health care services”) could be similarly construed.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- Faculty of Life and Social Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC.
- 1. Hardie EA, Critchley CR. Public perceptions of Australia’s doctors, hospitals and health care systems. Med J Aust 2008; 189: 210-214. <MJA full text>
- 2. Ipsos Health Care and Insurance — Australia 2007 report. Melbourne: Ipsos Australia, Nov 2007: 103.
- 3. Critchley CR. Public opinion and trust in scientists: the role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Underst Sci 2008; 17: 309-327.
- 4. Critchley C. Stem cell research: what do the public really think and why? In: Stranger MJA, editor. Human biotechnology and public trust: trends, perceptions and regulation. Occasional paper no. 7. Hobart: Centre for Law and Genetics, 2007.
- 5. Critchley C. The impact of commercialization on public support for science: detecting the reasons to enable solutions. Invited plenary paper presented at: Genome Canada Third International Conference — 2020 Vision: The Impact of Science on Society; 2008 Oct 22–24; Vancouver, Canada.