Priority-setting for healthcare: Who, how, and is it fair?

Menon, Devidas; Stafinski, Tania; Martin, Douglas K.

doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.05.009

Cited by 39 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Evidence from previous research suggests that 3 requirements are salient to gain stakeholders’ approval (Figure 2). First, decision making should be rational [23]. Second, decision making should be fair [24].…”

Section: Legitimizing Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutionalizing Telemedicine Applications: The Challenge of Legitimizing Decision-Making

Zanaboni¹,

Lettieri²

2011

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the last decades a variety of telemedicine applications have been trialed worldwide. However, telemedicine is still an example of major potential benefits that have not been fully attained. Health care regulators are still debating why institutionalizing telemedicine applications on a large scale has been so difficult and why health care professionals are often averse or indifferent to telemedicine applications, thus preventing them from becoming part of everyday clinical routines. We believe that the lack of consolidated procedures for supporting decision making by health care regulators is a major weakness.We aim to further the current debate on how to legitimize decision making about the institutionalization of telemedicine applications on a large scale.We discuss (1) three main requirements— rationality, fairness, and efficiency—that should underpin decision making so that the relevant stakeholders perceive them as being legitimate, and (2) the domains and criteria for comparing and assessing telemedicine applications—benefits and sustainability.According to these requirements and criteria, we illustrate a possible reference process for legitimate decision making about which telemedicine applications to implement on a large scale. This process adopts the health care regulators’ perspective and is made up of 2 subsequent stages, in which a preliminary proposal and then a full proposal are reviewed.

show abstract

Section: Legitimizing Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutionalizing Telemedicine Applications: The Challenge of Legitimizing Decision-Making

Zanaboni¹,

Lettieri²

2011

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mitton and Donaldson studied opinions of decision makers in three regional authorities in Alberta [29]; Menon, Stafinski and Martin subsequently engaged senior managers and board members in seven Alberta health regions [30]. Both the latter two studies used semi-structured in-person interviews as their main method.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision maker perceptions of resource allocation processes in Canadian health care organizations: a national survey

Smith

Mitton

Bryan

et al. 2013

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundResource allocation is a key challenge for healthcare decision makers. While several case studies of organizational practice exist, there have been few large-scale cross-organization comparisons.MethodsBetween January and April 2011, we conducted an on-line survey of senior decision makers within regional health authorities (and closely equivalent organizations) across all Canadian provinces and territories. We received returns from 92 individual managers, from 60 out of 89 organizations in total. The survey inquired about structures, process features, and behaviours related to organization-wide resource allocation decisions. We focus here on three main aspects: type of process, perceived fairness, and overall rating.ResultsAbout one-half of respondents indicated that their organization used a formal process for resource allocation, while the others reported that political or historical factors were predominant. Seventy percent (70%) of respondents self-reported that their resource allocation process was fair and just over one-half assessed their process as ‘good’ or ‘very good’. This paper explores these findings in greater detail and assesses them in context of the larger literature.ConclusionData from this large-scale cross-jurisdictional survey helps to illustrate common challenges and areas of positive performance among Canada’s health system leadership teams.

show abstract

“…While some of the authors have been involved in other projects at this level in Canada only one has yet been reported in the peer reviewed literature [4,5]. There are also few examples of cross-sectional surveys that look comparatively at priority setting or resource allocation processes in multiple organizations at the same point in time [6][7][8][9][10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design and implementation of a survey of senior Canadian healthcare decision-makers: Organization-wide resource allocation processes

Smith¹,

Mitton²,

Davidson³

et al. 2012

Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A three-year research project based in British Columbia, Canada, is attempting to develop a framework and tools to assist healthcare system decision-makers achieve "high performance" in resource allocation. In pursuit of this objective, a literature search was conducted and two phases of primary data collection are being undertaken: an on-line survey of senior healthcare decision-makers, and in-depth case studies of potential "high performing" organizations. This paper addresses the survey phase; our aim is to provide a practical example of the mechanics of survey design, of benefit to those who want to better understand our forthcoming results, but also as an aid to other researchers grappling with the hard choices and trade-offs involved in the survey development process. Survey content is described in light of the existing literature, with discussion of the choices made by the research team to decide what questions and items would be included and excluded. The target population for the survey was senior managers in Canadian regional health authorities (or the closest equivalent organizations) in each of the 10 provinces and 3 territories. The paper discusses how this sample was obtained, and describes the survey implementation process.

show abstract

Priority-setting for healthcare: Who, how, and is it fair?

Cited by 39 publications

References 17 publications

Institutionalizing Telemedicine Applications: The Challenge of Legitimizing Decision-Making

Institutionalizing Telemedicine Applications: The Challenge of Legitimizing Decision-Making

Decision maker perceptions of resource allocation processes in Canadian health care organizations: a national survey

Design and implementation of a survey of senior Canadian healthcare decision-makers: Organization-wide resource allocation processes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About