Literature DB >> 12603628

A note on the relative importance that people attach to different factors when setting priorities in health care.

Paul Dolan1, Rebecca Shaw.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To explore whether and to what extent people wish to give differential priority when asked to choose between providing health care treatment for different individuals or groups, on the basis of a range of factors, ranging from health gain to the number of dependants a person has.
DESIGN: A sample of people resident in York self-completed a questionnaire.
SETTING: The City of York. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-three members of the general public and 29 undergraduate students. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The relative importance of factors that people think should be taken into account when choosing between providing health care treatment for individuals or groups.
RESULTS: The results suggest that health gain and the consequences for health without treatment are two of the most important considerations.
CONCLUSIONS: A sample of the general public and undergraduate students wish to take account of a number of personal characteristics when setting priorities in health care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12603628      PMCID: PMC5060165          DOI: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2003.00210.x

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


  13 in total

1.  Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation.

Authors:  J Ratcliffe
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 2.  Equity and the economic evaluation of healthcare.

Authors:  F Sassi; L Archard; J Le Grand
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.014

3.  Examining preferences for allocating health care gains.

Authors:  G Mooney; S Jan; V Wiseman
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  1995-08

4.  Setting health care priorities in Oregon. Cost-effectiveness meets the rule of rescue.

Authors:  D C Hadorn
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1991-05-01       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Public views on health care rationing: a group discussion study.

Authors:  R Cookson; P Dolan
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 2.980

6.  The rationing debate. Rationing health care by age.

Authors:  A Williams; J G Evans
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-03-15

7.  Choosing who shall not be treated in the NHS.

Authors:  M C Charny; P A Lewis; S C Farrow
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 4.634

8.  The trade-off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost-value analysis of health care.

Authors:  E Nord
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 2.980

9.  Assessing priorities for allocation of donor liver grafts: survey of public and clinicians.

Authors:  J Neuberger; D Adams; P MacMaster; A Maidment; M Speed
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-07-18

Review 10.  The person-trade-off approach to valuing health care programs.

Authors:  E Nord
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1995 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.583

View more
  5 in total

1.  Citizen involvement in priority-setting.

Authors:  Angela Coulter
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  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

3.  Israeli lay persons' views on priority-setting criteria for Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Perla Werner
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2009-03-23       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  Multi-criteria decision analysis for setting priorities on HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand.

Authors:  Sitaporn Youngkong; Yot Teerawattananon; Sripen Tantivess; Rob Baltussen
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2012-02-17

5.  Who Shall Not Be Treated: Public Attitudes on Setting Health Care Priorities by Person-Based Criteria in 28 Nations.

Authors:  Jana Rogge; Bernhard Kittel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-09       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.