Patients' views of priority setting in health care: an interview survey in one practice

Dicker, Andrew; Armstrong, David W.

doi:10.1136/bmj.311.7013.1137

Cited by 45 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dicker and Armstrong, 1995;Stronks et al, 1997;Cookson and Dolan, 1999). It was clear from the literature reviewed, and from previously published reviews (Sassi et al, 2001a;Schwappach, 2002a;Dolan et al, 2005), that some commonly cited considerations, e.g.…”

Section: Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYMuch of the literature on distributive preferences covers specific considerations in isolation, and recent reviews have suggested that research is required to inform on the relative importance of various key considerations. Responding to this research recommendation, we explore the distributive preferences of the general public using a set of generic social value judgments. We report on a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey, using face-to-face interviews, in a sample of the general population (n 5 259). The context for the survey was resource allocation decisions in the UK National Health Service, using the process of health technology appraisal as an example. The attributes used covered health improvement, value for money, severity of health, and availability of other treatments, and it is the first such survey to use cost-effectiveness in scenarios described to the general public. Results support the feasibility and acceptability of the DCE approach for the elicitation of public preferences. Choice data are used to consider the relative importance of changes across attribute levels, and to model utility scores and relative probabilities for the full set of combinations of attributes and levels in the experimental design used (n 5 64). Results allow the relative social value of health technology scenarios to be explored. Findings add to a sparse literature on 'social' preferences, and show that DCE data can be used to consider the strength of preference over alternative scenarios in a prioritysetting context.

show abstract

Section: Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, some scholars claim that surveys that fail to give respondents the opportunity for reflection are of doubtful value (Dicker & Armstrong 1995, Dolan et al 1999, Busse 1999, Litva et al 2002, Wiseman et al 2003. It is worth noting that most studies in this research area are surveys using quantitative data, aiming to generalize the result to the population level.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

It takes a giraffe to see the big picture – Citizens' view on decision makers in health care rationing

Broqvist

Garpenby

2015

Social Science & Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies show that citizens usually prefer physicians as decision makers for rationing in health care, while politicians are downgraded. The findings are far from clear-cut due to methodological differences, and as the results are context sensitive they cannot easily be transferred between countries. Drawing on methodological experiences from previous research, this paper aims to identify and describe different ways Swedish citizens understand and experience decision makers for rationing in health care, exclusively on the programme level. We intend to address several challenges that arise when studying citizens' views on rationing by (a) using a method that allows for reflection, (b) using the respondents' nomination of decision makers, and (c) clearly identifying the rationing level. We used phenomenography, a qualitative method for studying variations and changes in perceiving phenomena. Open-ended interviews were conducted with 14 Swedish citizens selected by standard criteria (e.g. age) and by their attitude towards rationing.The main finding was that respondents viewed politicians as more legitimate decision makers in contrast to the results in most other studies. Interestingly, physicians, politicians, and citizens were all associated with some kind of risk related to self-interest in relation to rationing. A collaborative solution for decision making was preferred where the views of different actors were considered important. The fact that politicians were seen as appropriate decision makers could be explained by several factors: the respondents' new insights about necessary trade-offs at the programme level, awareness of the importance of an overview of different health care needs, awareness about self-interest among different categories of decision-makers, including physicians, and the national context of long-term political accountability for health care in Sweden. This study points to the importance of being aware of contextual and methodological issues in relation to research on how citizens experience arrangements for rationing in health care.

show abstract

“…As mentioned previously the public do not feel they have a role in the allocation of health resources. 12,13,14 To date there has been no published research in the dental literature which has determined the perceived acceptability and humanity of treatments amongst members of the public and service users. Previous research from the field of mental illness and palliative care has examined the acceptability of treatments from the viewpoint of the general public using vignettes.…”

Section: How Do We Go About Ascertaining the Views Of Consumers?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12,13,14 In particular, Crossley et al 14 suggest that patients are most interested in information on standards, performance and complaints. Patients, and presumably members of the general public, are more concerned with the process and outcome of treatment than the organisational and financial dimensions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Involving the 'consumer' in the evaluation of dental care: a philosophy in search of data

Newton¹

2001

Br Dent J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients' views of priority setting in health care: an interview survey in one practice

Abstract: Paradoxically, surveys of consumers' views on health care priorities probably do not elicit the personal ideas of respondents but tap into a more general ideological position closer to an earlier collectivist notion of health care.

Cited by 45 publications

References 1 publication

Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment

Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment

It takes a giraffe to see the big picture – Citizens' view on decision makers in health care rationing

Involving the 'consumer' in the evaluation of dental care: a philosophy in search of data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About