Literature DB >> 10102858

Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public's views of priority setting in health care: focus group study.

P Dolan1, R Cookson, B Ferguson.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the extent to which people change their views about priority setting in health care as a result of discussion and deliberation.
DESIGN: A random sample of patients from two urban general practices was invited to attend two focus group meetings, a fortnight apart.
SETTING: North Yorkshire Health Authority.
SUBJECTS: 60 randomly chosen patients meeting in 10 groups of five to seven people. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences between people's views at the start of the first meeting and at the end of the second meeting, after they have had an opportunity for discussion and deliberation, measured by questionnaires at the start of the first meeting and the end of the second meeting.
RESULTS: Respondents became more reticent about the role that their views should play in determining priorities and more sympathetic to the role that healthcare managers play. About a half of respondents initially wanted to give lower priority to smokers, heavy drinkers, and illegal drug users, but after discussion many no longer wished to discriminate against these people.
CONCLUSION: The public's views about setting priorities in health care are systematically different when they have been given an opportunity to discuss the issues. If the considered opinions of the general public are required, surveys that do not allow respondents time or opportunity for reflection may be of doubtful value.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Health Care and Public Health

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10102858      PMCID: PMC27815          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.318.7188.916

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  7 in total

1.  Public opinion and purchasing.

Authors:  A Richardson; M Charny; S Hanmer-Lloyd
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-03-14

2.  Setting priorities: is there a role for citizens' juries?

Authors:  J Lenaghan; B New; E Mitchell
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-06-22

3.  Health needs assessment. Whose priorities? Listening to users and the public.

Authors:  J Jordan; T Dowswell; S Harrison; R J Lilford; M Mort
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-05-30

4.  Which of two individuals do you treat when only their ages are different and you can't treat both?

Authors:  P A Lewis; M Charny
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 2.903

5.  Explorations in consultation of the public and health professionals on priority setting in an inner London health district.

Authors:  A Bowling; B Jacobson; L Southgate
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 4.634

6.  Health care rationing: the public's debate.

Authors:  A Bowling
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-03-16

7.  Patients' views of priority setting in health care: an interview survey in one practice.

Authors:  A Dicker; D Armstrong
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-10-28
  7 in total
  50 in total

1.  Public involvement in health care priority setting: an economic perspective.

Authors:  Tracy Roberts; Stirling Bryan; Chris Heginbotham; Alison McCallum
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Effect of discussion and deliberation on public's views of priority setting. More data are needed for readers to make judgment about study.

Authors:  B Hanratty; D Lawlor
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-07-17

Review 3.  Lifestyle medicines.

Authors:  D Gilbert; T Walley; B New
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-11-25

4.  Priority setting in health care. Of course we should ask the tax payer.

Authors:  R Cooksen; P Dolan
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-10-14

Review 5.  Measuring patients' preferences for treatment and perceptions of risk.

Authors:  A Bowling; S Ebrahim
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-09

6.  Involving patients and the public--is it worth the effort?

Authors:  R Chambers
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 7.  The impact of health economics on healthcare delivery: the health economists' perspective.

Authors:  R McDonald; A Haycox; T Walley
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 8.  Eliciting reasons: empirical methods in priority setting.

Authors:  Andreas Hasman
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2003-03

9.  Public response to cost-quality tradeoffs in clinical decisions.

Authors:  Mary Catherine Beach; David A Asch; Christopher Jepson; John C Hershey; Tara Mohr; Stacey McMorrow; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2003 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  Using best-worst scaling choice experiments to measure public perceptions and preferences for healthcare reform in australia.

Authors:  Jordan J Louviere; Terry N Flynn
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2010-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.