Understanding what matters: An exploratory study to investigate the views of the general public for priority setting criteria in health care

Julie Ratcliffe, Emily Lancsar, Ruth Walker, Yuanyuan Gu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Health care policy makers internationally are increasingly expressing commitment to consultation with, and incorporation of, the views of the general public into the formulation of health policy and the process of setting health care priorities. In practice, however, there are relatively few opportunities for the general public to be involved in health care decision-making. In making resource allocation decisions, funders, tasked with managing scarce health care resources, are often faced with difficult decisions in balancing efficiency with equity considerations. A mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative) approach incorporating focus group discussions and a ranking exercise was utilised to develop a comprehensive list of potential criteria for setting priorities in health care formulated from the perspective of members of the general public in Australia. A strong level of congruence was found in terms of the rankings of the key criteria with the size of the health gain, clinical effectiveness, and the ability to provide quality of life improvements identified consistently as the three most important criteria for prioritising the funding of an intervention. Findings from this study will be incorporated into a novel DCE framework to explore how decision makers and members of the general public prioritize and trade off different types of health gain and to quantify the weights attached to specific efficiency and equity criteria in the priority setting process.

LanguageEnglish
Pages653-662
Number of pages10
JournalHealth Policy
Volume121
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2017

Fingerprint

Delivery of Health Care
Health Policy
Efficiency
Health Priorities
Aptitude
Resource Allocation
Health Resources
Health
Quality Improvement
Focus Groups
Administrative Personnel
Decision Making
Referral and Consultation
Quality of Life
Exercise
Weights and Measures

Keywords

  • Focus groups
  • Health care priority setting
  • Mixed methods
  • Priority setting
  • Qualitative
  • Quantitative
  • Ranking

Cite this

@article{bcac5c897cf64653b8228302ecf84712,
title = "Understanding what matters: An exploratory study to investigate the views of the general public for priority setting criteria in health care",
abstract = "Health care policy makers internationally are increasingly expressing commitment to consultation with, and incorporation of, the views of the general public into the formulation of health policy and the process of setting health care priorities. In practice, however, there are relatively few opportunities for the general public to be involved in health care decision-making. In making resource allocation decisions, funders, tasked with managing scarce health care resources, are often faced with difficult decisions in balancing efficiency with equity considerations. A mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative) approach incorporating focus group discussions and a ranking exercise was utilised to develop a comprehensive list of potential criteria for setting priorities in health care formulated from the perspective of members of the general public in Australia. A strong level of congruence was found in terms of the rankings of the key criteria with the size of the health gain, clinical effectiveness, and the ability to provide quality of life improvements identified consistently as the three most important criteria for prioritising the funding of an intervention. Findings from this study will be incorporated into a novel DCE framework to explore how decision makers and members of the general public prioritize and trade off different types of health gain and to quantify the weights attached to specific efficiency and equity criteria in the priority setting process.",
keywords = "Focus groups, Health care priority setting, Mixed methods, Priority setting, Qualitative, Quantitative, Ranking",
author = "Julie Ratcliffe and Emily Lancsar and Ruth Walker and Yuanyuan Gu",
year = "2017",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.03.003",
language = "English",
volume = "121",
pages = "653--662",
journal = "Health Policy",
issn = "0168-8510",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "6",

}

Understanding what matters : An exploratory study to investigate the views of the general public for priority setting criteria in health care. / Ratcliffe, Julie; Lancsar, Emily; Walker, Ruth; Gu, Yuanyuan.

In: Health Policy, Vol. 121, No. 6, 01.06.2017, p. 653-662.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Understanding what matters

T2 - Health Policy

AU - Ratcliffe, Julie

AU - Lancsar, Emily

AU - Walker, Ruth

AU - Gu, Yuanyuan

PY - 2017/6/1

Y1 - 2017/6/1

N2 - Health care policy makers internationally are increasingly expressing commitment to consultation with, and incorporation of, the views of the general public into the formulation of health policy and the process of setting health care priorities. In practice, however, there are relatively few opportunities for the general public to be involved in health care decision-making. In making resource allocation decisions, funders, tasked with managing scarce health care resources, are often faced with difficult decisions in balancing efficiency with equity considerations. A mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative) approach incorporating focus group discussions and a ranking exercise was utilised to develop a comprehensive list of potential criteria for setting priorities in health care formulated from the perspective of members of the general public in Australia. A strong level of congruence was found in terms of the rankings of the key criteria with the size of the health gain, clinical effectiveness, and the ability to provide quality of life improvements identified consistently as the three most important criteria for prioritising the funding of an intervention. Findings from this study will be incorporated into a novel DCE framework to explore how decision makers and members of the general public prioritize and trade off different types of health gain and to quantify the weights attached to specific efficiency and equity criteria in the priority setting process.

AB - Health care policy makers internationally are increasingly expressing commitment to consultation with, and incorporation of, the views of the general public into the formulation of health policy and the process of setting health care priorities. In practice, however, there are relatively few opportunities for the general public to be involved in health care decision-making. In making resource allocation decisions, funders, tasked with managing scarce health care resources, are often faced with difficult decisions in balancing efficiency with equity considerations. A mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative) approach incorporating focus group discussions and a ranking exercise was utilised to develop a comprehensive list of potential criteria for setting priorities in health care formulated from the perspective of members of the general public in Australia. A strong level of congruence was found in terms of the rankings of the key criteria with the size of the health gain, clinical effectiveness, and the ability to provide quality of life improvements identified consistently as the three most important criteria for prioritising the funding of an intervention. Findings from this study will be incorporated into a novel DCE framework to explore how decision makers and members of the general public prioritize and trade off different types of health gain and to quantify the weights attached to specific efficiency and equity criteria in the priority setting process.

KW - Focus groups

KW - Health care priority setting

KW - Mixed methods

KW - Priority setting

KW - Qualitative

KW - Quantitative

KW - Ranking

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85017467996&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.03.003

DO - 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.03.003

M3 - Article

VL - 121

SP - 653

EP - 662

JO - Health Policy

JF - Health Policy

SN - 0168-8510

IS - 6

ER -