Literature DB >> 28433324

Stakeholder views on criteria and processes for priority setting in Norway: a qualitative study.

Jeremy M Aidem1.   

Abstract

Since 2013, Norway has engaged in political processes to revise criteria for priority setting. These processes have yielded key efficiency and equity criteria, but excluded potentially relevant social values. This study describes the views of 27 stakeholders in Norway's health system regarding a wider set of priority-setting criteria and procedural characteristics. Between January and February 2016, semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with a purposive sample of policymakers, hospital administrators, practitioners, university students and seniors. Improving health among low-socioeconomic-status groups was considered an important policy objective: some favored giving more priority to diseases affecting socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, and some believed inequalities in health could be more effectively addressed outside the health sector. Age was not widely accepted as an independent criterion, but deemed relevant as an indicator of capacity to benefit, cost-effectiveness and health loss. Cost-effectiveness, severity and health-loss measures were judged relevant to policymaking, but cost-effectiveness and health loss were considered less influential to clinical decision-making. Public engagement was seen as essential yet complicated by media and stakeholder pressures. This study highlights how views on the relevance and implementation of criteria can vary significantly according to the health system level being evaluated. Further, the findings suggest that giving priority to socioeconomically disadvantaged groups and reducing inequalities in health may be relevant preferences not captured in recent policy proposals.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Equity; Health policy; Norway; Priority setting; Resource allocation

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28433324     DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.04.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Policy        ISSN: 0168-8510            Impact factor:   2.980


  8 in total

1.  Who is in and who is out? A qualitative analysis of stakeholder participation in priority setting for health in three districts in Uganda.

Authors:  S Donya Razavi; Lydia Kapiriri; Julia Abelson; Michael Wilson
Journal:  Health Policy Plan       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 3.344

2.  'There is no such thing as getting sick justly or unjustly' - a qualitative study of clinicians' beliefs on the relevance of personal responsibility as a basis for health prioritisation.

Authors:  Gloria Traina; Eli Feiring
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 2.655

3.  Area deprivation and attachment to a general practitioner through centralized waiting lists: a cross-sectional study in Quebec, Canada.

Authors:  Mélanie Ann Smithman; Astrid Brousselle; Nassera Touati; Antoine Boivin; Kareen Nour; Carl-Ardy Dubois; Christine Loignon; Djamal Berbiche; Mylaine Breton
Journal:  Int J Equity Health       Date:  2018-12-04

4.  Prioritization approaches in the development of health practice guidelines: a systematic review.

Authors:  Amena El-Harakeh; Rami Z Morsi; Racha Fadlallah; Lama Bou-Karroum; Tamara Lotfi; Elie A Akl
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-10-15       Impact factor: 2.655

5.  Priority-setting dilemmas, moral distress and support experienced by nurses and physicians in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway.

Authors:  Ingrid Miljeteig; Ingeborg Forthun; Karl Ove Hufthammer; Inger Elise Engelund; Elisabeth Schanche; Margrethe Schaufel; Kristine Husøy Onarheim
Journal:  Nurs Ethics       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 2.874

6.  Public participation: healthcare rationing in the newspaper media.

Authors:  Audun Brendbekken; Bjarne Robberstad; Ole F Norheim
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2022-03-28       Impact factor: 2.655

Review 7.  The sociology of rationing: Towards increased interdisciplinary dialogue - A critical interpretive literature review.

Authors:  Amalie Martinus Hauge; Eva Iris Otto; Sarah Wadmann
Journal:  Sociol Health Illn       Date:  2022-06-12

Review 8.  Value judgment of health interventions from different perspectives: arguments and criteria.

Authors:  Karin M Vermeulen; Paul F M Krabbe
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2018-04-17
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.