35
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Priority setting: what constitutes success? A conceptual framework for successful priority setting

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The sustainability of healthcare systems worldwide is threatened by a growing demand for services and expensive innovative technologies. Decision makers struggle in this environment to set priorities appropriately, particularly because they lack consensus about which values should guide their decisions. One way to approach this problem is to determine what all relevant stakeholders understand successful priority setting to mean. The goal of this research was to develop a conceptual framework for successful priority setting.

          Methods

          Three separate empirical studies were completed using qualitative data collection methods (one-on-one interviews with healthcare decision makers from across Canada; focus groups with representation of patients, caregivers and policy makers; and Delphi study including scholars and decision makers from five countries).

          Results

          This paper synthesizes the findings from three studies into a framework of ten separate but interconnected elements germane to successful priority setting: stakeholder understanding, shifted priorities/reallocation of resources, decision making quality, stakeholder acceptance and satisfaction, positive externalities, stakeholder engagement, use of explicit process, information management, consideration of values and context, and revision or appeals mechanism.

          Conclusion

          The ten elements specify both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of priority setting and relate to both process and outcome components. To our knowledge, this is the first framework that describes successful priority setting. The ten elements identified in this research provide guidance for decision makers and a common language to discuss priority setting success and work toward improving priority setting efforts.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Book: not found

          Basics of Qualitative Research : Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory

          The Second Edition of this best-selling textbook continues to offer immensely practical advice and technical expertise that will aid researchers in analyzing and interpreting their collected data, and ultimately build theory from it. The authors provide a step-by-step guide to the research act. Full of definitions and illustrative examples, the book presents criteria for evaluating a study as well as responses to common questions posed by students of qualitative research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Rigour and qualitative research.

            N Mays, C Pope (1995)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A strategy to improve priority setting in health care institutions.

              Priority setting (also known as resource allocation or rationing) occurs at every level of every health system and is one of the most significant health care policy questions of the 21st century. Because it is so prevalent and context specific, improving priority setting in a health system entails improving it in the institutions that constitute the system. But, how should this be done? Normative approaches are necessary because they help identify key values that clarify policy choices, but insufficient because different approaches lead to different conclusions and there is no consensus about which ones are correct, and they are too abstract to be directly used in actual decision making. Empirical approaches are necessary because they help to identify what is being done and what can be done, but are insufficient because they cannot identify what should be done. Moreover, to be really helpful, an improvement strategy must utilize rigorous research methods that are able to analyze and capture experience so that past problems are corrected and lessons can be shared with others. Therefore, a constructive, practical and accessible improvement strategy must be research-based and combine both normative and empirical methods. In this paper we propose a research-based improvement strategy that involves combining three linked methods: case study research to describe priority setting; interdisciplinary research to evaluate the description using an ethical framework; and action research to improve priority setting. This describe-evaluate-improve strategy is a generalizable method that can be used in different health care institutions to improve priority setting in that context.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central
                1472-6963
                2009
                5 March 2009
                : 9
                : 43
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
                [2 ]University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, Toronto, Canada
                [3 ]The McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health, Toronto, Canada
                [4 ]Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, Toronto, Canada
                Article
                1472-6963-9-43
                10.1186/1472-6963-9-43
                2655292
                19265518
                1503c009-6e58-4283-ac0d-5b393a9b8b2d
                Copyright © 2009 Sibbald et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 17 June 2008
                : 5 March 2009
                Categories
                Research Article

                Health & Social care
                Health & Social care

                Comments

                Comment on this article