OBJECTIVES: The debate on whether health gains should be weighted differently for different patient groups has focused recently on the relative value of treatments for patients with short life expectancy. It is unclear whether society is prepared to fund end-of-life treatments that would not meet the reimbursement criteria used for other treatments. Our objective is to review the empirical evidence in the published literature relevant to the following research question: Do members of the general public wish to place greater weight on a unit of health gain for end-of-life patients than on that for other types of patients?  METHODS: A systematic approach was used to identify and select data for the review. We conducted a keyword search of the Social Sciences Citation Index (aided by an innovative approach to ‘searching for search terms’), with follow-up of references to obtain additional data. Hierarchical criteria were applied to select empirical studies reporting stated preferences relating to hypothetical health care priority-setting contexts.  RESULTS: Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Choice exercises (including the discrete choice experiment approach) were the most common method; other approaches included willingness-to-pay, budget pie and person trade-off. Some studies found that the observed preferences regarding end-of-life patients are influenced by information about the patients’ ages.  CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is mixed, with an equal split between the number of studies that report evidence consistent with an end-of-life ‘premium’ and the number that do not. We identify and discuss methodological and design aspects that appear to influence the findings of priority-setting preference studies.