Literature DB >> 11281899

Public involvement in health care priority setting: an overview of methods for eliciting values.

Penelope M. Mullen1.   

Abstract

There is increasing interest, in the UK and elsewhere, in involving the public in health care priority setting. At the same time, however, there is evidence of lack of clarity about the objectives of some priority setting projects and also about the role of public involvement. Further, some projects display an apparent ignorance of both long-standing theoretical literature and practical experience of methodologies for eliciting values in health care and related fields. After a brief examination of the context of health care priority setting and public involvement, this paper describes a range of different approaches to eliciting values. These approaches are critically examined on a number of dimensions including the type of choice allowed to respondents and the implications of aggregation of values across individuals. Factors which affect the appropriateness of the different techniques to specific applications are discussed. A check-list of questions to be asked when selecting techniques is presented.

Year:  1999        PMID: 11281899      PMCID: PMC5080938          DOI: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.1999.00062.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Expect        ISSN: 1369-6513            Impact factor:   3.377


  14 in total

1.  Rational rationing?

Authors:  P M Mullen
Journal:  Health Serv Manage Res       Date:  1998-05

2.  Assessing community values in health care: is the 'willingness to pay' method feasible?

Authors:  C Donaldson; S Farrar; T Mapp; A Walker; S Macphee
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  1997-03

3.  Involving patients in complex decisions about their care: an approach using the analytic hierarchy process.

Authors:  J G Dolan; D R Bordley
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Are patients capable of using the analytic hierarchy process and willing to use it to help make clinical decisions?

Authors:  J G Dolan
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1995 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Willingness to pay: a valid and reliable measure of health state preference?

Authors:  B O'Brien; J L Viramontes
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1994 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Community Health Council representation on planning teams: a question of politics?

Authors:  P Mullen; K Murray-Sykes; W E Kearns
Journal:  Public Health       Date:  1984-05       Impact factor: 2.427

7.  Community participation in evaluation: problems and potentials.

Authors:  M T Feuerstein
Journal:  Int Nurs Rev       Date:  1980 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.871

8.  Determining priorities for purchasers. The public response to rationing within the NHS.

Authors:  A Richardson
Journal:  J Manag Med       Date:  1997

9.  Isoniazid prophylaxis: the importance of individual values.

Authors:  J G Dolan; D R Bordley
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1994 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  The time trade-off method: results from a general population study.

Authors:  P Dolan; C Gudex; P Kind; A Williams
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1996 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.046

View more
  22 in total

Review 1.  Methods for incorporating patients' views in health care.

Authors:  Michel Wensing; Glyn Elwyn
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-04-19

Review 2.  Eliciting reasons: empirical methods in priority setting.

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

3.  Public views on priority setting for high cost medications in public hospitals in Australia.

Authors:  Gisselle Gallego; Susan J Taylor; Paul McNeill; Jo-anne E Brien
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 4.  A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research.

Authors:  Sandy R Oliver; Rebecca W Rees; Lorna Clarke-Jones; Ruairidh Milne; Ann R Oakley; John Gabbay; Ken Stein; Phyll Buchanan; Gill Gyte
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  Choosing vs. allocating: discrete choice experiments and constant-sum paired comparisons for the elicitation of societal preferences.

Authors:  Chris D Skedgel; Allan J Wailoo; Ron L Akehurst
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-06-12       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Priority setting for the implementation of artemisinin-based combination therapy policy in Tanzania: evaluation against the accountability for reasonableness framework.

Authors:  Amani Thomas Mori; Eliangiringa Amos Kaale
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2012-03-18       Impact factor: 7.327

7.  The public's priorities in health services.

Authors:  Giora Kaplan; Orna Baron-Epel
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-04-03       Impact factor: 3.377

8.  Constant-sum paired comparisons for eliciting stated preferences: a tutorial.

Authors:  Chris Skedgel; Dean A Regier
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.883

9.  Harnessing the potential to quantify public preferences for healthcare priorities through citizens' juries.

Authors:  Jennifer A Whitty; Paul Burton; Elizabeth Kendall; Julie Ratcliffe; Andrew Wilson; Peter Littlejohns; Paul A Scuffham
Journal:  Int J Health Policy Manag       Date:  2014-06-16

10.  Research on patients' views in the evaluation and improvement of quality of care.

Authors:  M Wensing; G Elwyn
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2002-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.