Angelos Tsourapas1, Emma Frew. 1. School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) is a priority-setting toolkit which aims to assist decision-makers in identifying the most efficient use of resources. The last systematic literature review on PBMA was published in 2001 and evaluated success in applying PBMA using the criteria of 'reallocation of resources' or the 'setting of priorities'. Our objective was to re-evaluate applications of PBMA in terms of these criteria separately, summarize different evaluation methods of PBMA and extend the above review by considering all PBMA applications since 2001. METHODS: Systematic literature review. Information was sought from four general medical electronic databases. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used. RESULTS: PBMA was successful in 52% of cases when success was defined in terms of the participants gaining a better understanding of the area under interest; in 65% of cases when success was defined as 'implementation of all or some of the advisory panel's recommendations'; in 48% of the studies when success was defined in terms of disinvesting or resource reallocation; and in 22% when success was defined in terms of adopting the framework for future use. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of success is clearly influenced by how success is defined. There is a need for a broadly accepted definition of success to be used when evaluating PBMA applications so to enable direct comparisons of studies. This evaluatory component needs to be adjacent to PBMA and not a separate procedure.
OBJECTIVES: Programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) is a priority-setting toolkit which aims to assist decision-makers in identifying the most efficient use of resources. The last systematic literature review on PBMA was published in 2001 and evaluated success in applying PBMA using the criteria of 'reallocation of resources' or the 'setting of priorities'. Our objective was to re-evaluate applications of PBMA in terms of these criteria separately, summarize different evaluation methods of PBMA and extend the above review by considering all PBMA applications since 2001. METHODS: Systematic literature review. Information was sought from four general medical electronic databases. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used. RESULTS: PBMA was successful in 52% of cases when success was defined in terms of the participants gaining a better understanding of the area under interest; in 65% of cases when success was defined as 'implementation of all or some of the advisory panel's recommendations'; in 48% of the studies when success was defined in terms of disinvesting or resource reallocation; and in 22% when success was defined in terms of adopting the framework for future use. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of success is clearly influenced by how success is defined. There is a need for a broadly accepted definition of success to be used when evaluating PBMA applications so to enable direct comparisons of studies. This evaluatory component needs to be adjacent to PBMA and not a separate procedure.
Authors: Rhiannon Tudor Edwards; Joanna M Charles; Sara Thomas; Julie Bishop; David Cohen; Sam Groves; Ciaran Humphreys; Helen Howson; Peter Bradley Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-08-12 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Rob Baltussen; Maarten P Jansen; Evelinn Mikkelsen; Noor Tromp; Jan Hontelez; Leon Bijlmakers; Gert Jan Van der Wilt Journal: Int J Health Policy Manag Date: 2016-11-01
Authors: Christopher R Vernazza; Katherine Carr; John Wildman; Joanne Gray; Richard D Holmes; Catherine Exley; Robert A Smith; Cam Donaldson Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-06-22 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: John Bowers; Helen Cheyne; Gillian Mould; Martin Miller; Miranda Page; Fiona Harris; Debra Bick Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-08-22 Impact factor: 2.655